He began to speak unto them in parables ( ). Mark’s common idiom again. He does not mean that this was the beginning of Christ’s use of parables (see 4:2), but simply that his teaching on this occasion took the parabolic turn. “The circumstances called forth the parabolic mood, that of one whose heart is chilled, and whose spirit is saddened by a sense of loneliness, and who, retiring within himself, by a process of reflection, frames for his thoughts forms which half conceal, half reveal them” (Bruce). Mark does not give the Parable of the Two Sons (Mt 21:28-32) nor that of the Marriage Feast of the King’s Son (Mt 22:1-14). He gives here the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen. Also in Mt 21:33-46 and Lu 20:9-19. See discussion in Matthew. Mt 21:33 calls the man “a householder” ().

A pit for the winepress (). Only here in the N.T. Common in the LXX and in late Greek. Matthew had , winepress. This is the vessel or trough under the winepress on the hillside to catch the juice when the grapes were trodden. The Romans called it lacus (lake) and Wycliff dalf (lake), like delved. See on Matthew for details just alike.

Husbandmen (). Workers in the ground, tillers of the soil (, ).

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

Wine fat [] . Rev., wine – press. Only here in New Testament. The wine – press was constructed in the side of a sloping rock, in which a trough was excavated, which was the wine press proper. Underneath this was dug another trough, with openings communicating with the trough above, into which the juice ran from the press. This was called by the Rom. lacus, or the lake. The word here used for the whole structure strictly means this trough underneath [] the press [] . This is the explanation of Wyc. ‘s translation, dalf [] , a lake.

Went into a far country [] . But this is too strong. The word means simply went abroad. So Wyc., went forth in pilgrimage; and Tynd., into a strange country. Rev., another country. See on Mt 25:14. Of the fruits. Or, literally, from [] the fruits, showing that the rent was to be paid in kind.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

THE DEMAND OF HOUSEHOLDER OF FRUIT FROM HIS VINEYARD V. 1-12

1) “And He began to speak unto them by parables.” (kai erksato autois en parabolais lalein) “And He then began to speak to (the Jews) in parables,” in numerous parables, Mat 13:10-15. The main one a this point was the rejected stone, Mar 12:10-11.

2) “A certain man planted a vineyard,” (ampelona anthropos ephuteusen) “Once a man planted a vineyard;That man was God; Israel was His vineyard that brought forth wild grapes only, Isa 5:1-7.

3) “And set an hedge about it,” (kai perietheken phragmon) “And he put a hedge around it,” fenced it in with a stone wall to keep out wild boars, jackles, and foxes, Num 22:24; Neh 4:3, or a planted hedgerow, restricted its conduct and activities, in and by the law, Joh 1:17; Luk 16:16.

4) “And digged a place for the winefat,” (kai ourksen hupolenion) “And he dug a winepress,” an under-vat of a winepress, a tank into which the juice trampled out in the upper-vat flowed, Mat 21:33; Mat 13:2.

5) “And built a tower,” (kai okodomesen purgon) “And built a tower,” a watch-tower, an organized program of worship and Divine Service and order of civil law, Eze 3:7-12.

6) “And let it out to husbandmen,” (kai eksedoto auton georgois) “And then let it out to husbandmen,” to trustees, who represented Israel, to whom were committed the oracles of God,” Rom 3:1-2.

7) “And went into a far country.” (kai apeclemesen) “And went away for some time and a distance,” back into a better country, to his own abode, Luk 20:9.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES

Mar. 12:1. A place for the winefat.Simply a winepress; or (more exactly) winevat, i.e. the receptacle under the winepress proper. Probably is here used to denote the whole apparatus, which was often hollowed out of a sloping rock. A tower.A stone building some twenty feet high, with a flat roof, where a sentinel was posted to protect the vineyard from depredators. It would also serve as a residence during the vintage season. Into a far country.Too strong: is just went from home.

Mar. 12:4. See R. V.

Mar. 12:6. Most pathetically put in the original: There was yet one he possessed, a son beloved; he sent him last to visit them, saying. They will feel ashamed of themselves in presence of my son.

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Mar. 12:1-12

(PARALLELS: Mat. 21:33-41; Luk. 20:9-18.)

The husbandmen and the vineyard.In this parable our Lord seeks to convince the Jews of the sinful state of the nation, and to warn them of the terrible judgments they were bringing on themselves. These features will be dwelt on more fully in the next Outline; the following more general lessons may be enforced here.

I. This parable condemns injustice between man and man.It assumes that a man has a right in that which belongs to him, and exposes the wickedness of those who attempt to take the law into their own hands. It goes dead against such teaching as has led to bloodshed and misery in Ireland, and can only result in ruin wherever it is put in practice.

II. This parable enforces solemn spiritual lessons.

1. We are not our own (1Co. 6:10; 1Co. 6:20). The soul is a vineyard, and we have no right to neglect or misuse it. Every talent entrusted to us must be employed for the glory of God, and in obedience to His commands.

2. The Lord of the vineyard has afforded us every opportunity for right cultivation, and He expects us to render a due return. No man is elected to any advantage over his fellows for his own sake or enjoyment. He is rather in the position of one to whom finer and more powerful instruments are given, that by their possession he may be the servant of all the rest.
3. Obedience must be the voluntary submission of our free choice; and God will not be satisfied without this.

The Stone which the builders rejected.Those whom our Lord addressed had not only read this scripture, but had been accustomed to apply it to the proper personnot David himself, but Davids Son and Lord, the Messiah. So that here, as elsewhere, Christ covertly takes to Himself that office and dignity which, out of consideration for their prejudices, He forbore openly to assume. After His ascension, when there was no longer any reason for reserve, His apostles affirmed the same truth in the plainest terms (Act. 4:10; Acts 11; 1Pe. 2:7).

I. The rejection of Jesus Christ by the Jewish nation.They were the builders, a people specially set apart to preserve the knowledge of God in the world. This they had donecarried up the structure to a certain height above the ground, as far as their materials would go. But now, on there being presented to them a Stone, a chief Corner-stone, just what they required to complete the edifice, they cast it aside with derision and contempt. And in so doing they unwittingly fulfilled prophecy (Act. 13:27).

II. The exaltation of Jesus Christ, notwithstanding their rejection.We cannot, like Stephen, see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God. But we may behold the visible kingdom and Church of Christ, as it was instituted at Jerusalem immediately after His ascension, and continues to this day. We may trace the marvellous progress of this institution in the pages of the inspired narrative, so far as that narrative extends. Proceeding onwards, we may view the kingdoms of this world, one after another, becoming the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ, and the religion of the Crucified firmly established and consolidated in the world.

III. The Divine agency to which this is to be ascribed.From whom, if not from God, could a work so truly Divine, so far surpassing all human powers and conceptions, proceed?

1. Consider it as a gift (Jas. 1:17; Rom. 6:23; Joh. 3:16).

2. Consider it as a signal defeat and disconcerting of the counsels of men (Psa. 33:10; Job. 5:13; Psa. 76:10).

3. Consider it as still proceeding, and recognise the Lords doing both in the rejection and the reception of Jesus Christ, and of the doctrine which He brought down from heaven, and sealed with His blood.F. Field, LL.D.

OUTLINES AND COMMENTS ON THE VERSES

Mar. 12:1. Gods care for Israel.Canaan was a vineyard enclosed (Exo. 15:17; Psa. 44:2; Neh. 9:23-25; Psa. 80:8-11). Lines of demarcation were laid down between the people of Israel and the surrounding nations, partly because the idolatries practised by those nations were so defiling and infectious that even the chosen nation could not be trusted to mingle with them on free terms. They were forbidden to intermarry with other people. Moreover they were isolated by their geographical position: the desert of Paran bounded their southern states; the Mediterranean Sea, the west; the rugged mountains of Lebanon, the north; and their eastern frontier was a water boundary. A vineyard required unceasing care and attention; so every facility was furnished the children of Israel to become a nation of saints.J. H. Morgan.

The soul, Gods vineyard.The soul, according to one figurative sense of this parable, is the vineyard of God. When He created it, He planted it; He set a hedge about it, which is that of His commandments. The winepress is the representative sacrifice which causes the blood of Christ to flow into it. The tower is the Church, the house of prayer, in which the soul, being raised from the earth, is secure from its enemies, and finds in the Word of God arms strong enough to overcome them. Our soul is not our own: God, who is the creator, is likewise the proprietor of it. We hold it of Him, as it were, by lease, only that we may cultivate it, and render to Him the fruits which it is capable of producing by His grace. Let us take great care that we be not found, either not having any at all, or claiming the property of them to ourselves.P. Quesnel.

Mar. 12:3-9. The wicked husbandmen.

1. Injustice to men results from unfaithfulness to God.
2. The wicked expect to profit by the removal of the righteous.
3. What is good passes from those who will not use it to those who will.
4. Those most honoured by God have not been most honoured by men.J. H. Godwin.

The form of this parable.At most this parable is but an old theme worked up with new variations. Every one who heard it knew what the vineyard with its hedge, winepress, and tower signified, and who the vinedressers were, and who the servants sent for the fruits. These phrases belonged to the established religious dialect of Israel as much as the words pastor, flock, lambs of the flock, Zion, etc., do to ours, used by us all without consciousness that we are speaking in figures. In adopting this form of presentation, therefore, Jesus was not so much speaking in parables as using the recognised authority of written prophecy against His opponents, a most appropriate procedure when the question at issue respecied His personal authority.A. B. Bruce, D.D.

The design of this parable.The design is to signalise the contrast between the spirit of the owner and that of the men to whom the vineyard was entrusted. The owner has an eye to fruit; the details depicting the construction of the vineyard all point towards fruit as the chief end, and they are enumerated for no other reason There is a hedge, that the vines may not be spoiled by wild beasts; a press and vat, that the grapes may be squeezed and the juice preserved; a tower, that the ripe fruit may not be stolen. The didactic significance of these particulars is not, as in the original form of the allegory in Isaiah, that all has been done that could be done for the vineyard, so as to make the owner free from blame, but that all has been done with one object in view, viz. the production of fruit. In keeping with this emphasising of fruitfulness as the reason of the existence of the vineyard fully equipped for the purpose, is the reiterated persistent demand for the fruit when the season came round, as also the intimation of the owners purpose, on conclusively ascertaining that no fruit was to be forthcoming, to entrust his vineyard to others. On the other hand, what was the temper of the vinedressers? Was it that of men who wished to keep the fruit to themselves instead of giving it to the owner? No; but rather that of men who never thought of fruit, but only of the honour and privilege of being entrusted with the keeping of the vineyard. They were triflers, men utterly devoid of earnestness, and the practical purpose of the property committed to their charge they habitually forgot. The hedge and the press and the tower might as well not have been there. When the servants came for the fruit they were simply surprised. Fruit, did you say? we have occupied the position of vinedressers, and duly drawn our wages: what more do you want? Such was the actual fact in regard to the spiritual heads of Israel. They had been entrusted with a valuable institutionan elect nation furnished with good laws, and meant to be a holy nation, a people to Gods praise. And speaking generally, they had lost sight of the end of Israels calling, and had made no use of the means provided for its attainment. They had occupied their position for their own glory; taken pay and done no work. They had committed the sin to which privileged classes have ever been pronethat of thinking only of privilege, and forgetting duty.Ibid.

Application of this parable to Christians.A rich vineyard, planted and fenced, is let out to us by the Divine Owner. The Bible, the Church, and the ministry have been provided and preserved for us. These blessings are not ours by right; we are tenants at will. We cannot truly enjoy the produce of the vineyard unless we reserve a portion for the owner. Those fruits enrich us most when returned to the Giver. They cannot be presented directly to Him, but they are made payable to the poor and His ministers. His Son has come to claim them, and is now waiting for our supreme reverence, trust, and love. See that ye refuse not Him that speaketh.J. H. Morgan.

Mar. 12:6. The treatment due to Christ from sinners.It might have been presumed that sinners would treat Christ kindly, from

1. The Divinity and glory of His nature.
2. The perfect excellence of His character.
3. The reasonableness of His claims.
4. The goodness of His intentions.
5. His known ability to save.
6. His power to destroy.
7. Their own necessities. One might sooner expect a beggar to spurn a palace, or a dying man to refuse the touch that would bring him life and health.

The Mission of the Son.As He reached this point of the parable we may well believe that a thrill of blended joy and horror shot through the heart of Him who spake as never man spake, and loved as never man loved. For now He has to speak of Himself, and of His Fathers grace as shewn in and through Him. There was yet one, a well-beloved Son; and He last of all was sent by the all-enduring Lord of all. Must not His whole being have thrilled with deep and sacred joy at the thought that His Father loved Him, loved Him well and much, loved Him most of all for the love which prompted Him to lay down His life for the sinful race which hated and rejected Him? Amid all the sorrow and darkness which confronted Him, must He not have been consoled and upheld by the conviction that the God who had spoken to men in sundry fragments and divers ways by the prophets in times gone by, was now speaking to them by the Son whom He had appointed heir of all things, and was about to reveal to them the very fulness of His grace, His kindness and philanthropythat even the death of the Cross was ordained by His Father, and was part of the plan by which He would yet draw all men unto Himself? And yet, as He turned from God to men, as the thought of His rejection, of all He had suffered and was still to suffer at the hands of these lawless upholders of law, must He not have been profoundly appalled by the sense of that guilt which He came to take away? He had long and often spoken of His death to His disciples, striving to prepare them for it; but now, for the first time, He predicts His rejection and death to the people at large, and in especial charges the rulers and priests, who had already in secret council conspired to put Him to death, with the guilt, with the deep damnation of His taking-off. If they could He could not, face that guilt unmoved; and as He put into the mouths of those wicked husbandmen the words, This is the heir; come, and let us kill him, that the inheritance may be oursif the priestly rulers (who, to keep their place, had determined to murder Him)if they started as at the voice of an accusing and impersonated conscience, to which all their guilty secrets were known, how must He, who loved even them, have been grieved and appalled at a wickedness so stiff-necked and stupendous as theirs!S. Cox, D.D.

Mar. 12:7. The Son known and rejected.

1. Jesus claims to be the Heir of God. In acting for God He acts for Himself. It is nature and relationship, not mere official dignity, that underlies this title and that is implied in the parable.
2. Jesus implies that this was known by these Jewish leaders. Their condemnation was, that, knowing Him to be the Son of God, they slew Him. They had a conviction that Jesus was the Christ, but they would not let their mind dwell upon it. There are thousands who have a haunting suspicion that Jesus deserves a very different kind of recognition from that which they give Him.M. Dods, D. D.

Denial in spite of conviction.Beneath many an obstinate denial of Him lies a secret confession or misgiving, which is more truly the man than the loud negation. And such strange contradictions are men, that the secret conviction is often the very thing which gives bitterness and eagerness to the hostility.A. Maclaren, D. D.

The inheritance shall be ours.Fatal mistake! The inheritance was theirs, and in slaying the Heir they cast themselves out of it.Prof. F. J. A. Hort.

Mar. 12:10-11. The rejected Stone.The psalmist, in these two verses, is held to have referred to an incident in the building or in the rebuilding of the Temple. A stone which after examination the builders had rejected and cast aside as unworthy of a place in the foundation, had proved, when re-examined, to be of such noble quality that it was used as a corner-stone in the cornice, at an angle where two walls met, and was thus exalted to a conspicuous place of honour. Such a reversal of skilled human judgment was held to be the Lords doing, a marvel which called for admiration and praise. As it was with the rejected stone, Jesus implies, so will it be with the rejected Son. You priests and rulers have rejected Me; you are about, as you think, to cover Me with shame and dishonour; but God is laughing at you, and at the shallow cunning you mistake for policy and wisdom: He will have you in derision; He will lift His despised and rejected Son into a place so lofty and honourable as that all the world may see Him, and praise the God who has exalted Him.S. Cox, D.D.

Gods truth overcoming human opposition.It is very remarkable how often this has been repeated in the history of the Churchhow great religious movements have been frowned down, if not actively opposed, by those in high places, which have afterwards subdued all opposition. In our own times, in this very century, this has occurred twice. First, the great evangelical movement in the Church of England was set at naught by the builders, though it was the assertion of the primary truth of personal religionthat each soul must have a personal apprehension of Christ, and look to Him with the eye of a living faith; and then the great Church movement was almost unanimously rejected by the bishops between 1840 and 1850, though it was the assertion of the truths patent through all the New Testament, that the Church, though a visible organisation, is the mystical body of Christthat it is a supernatural system of grace, and that its sacraments are the signs of grace actually given in and with the outward sign. In neither of these cases did the builders discern the strength of the principles asserted, and foresee that they must win their way, though the formularies of the Church, of which these builders were the exponents and guardians, assert very unmistakably both these truths in conjunction, viz. spiritual apprehension of Christ, and sacramental union in His body.M. F. Sadler.

Christ is to His Church a stone, which is solid by His immortality, white by His purity,a principal one, as being her Head; a foundation-stone, as Author and Finisher of the faith; and a corner-stone, as being the band and union of all His members. They whose business it is to build the spiritual edifice are sometimes so unhappy as to reject the most lively and excellent stones. But God will certainly take care to reserve them their proper place, and to put them into the building.P. Quesnel.

Mar. 12:12. Reproof should be welcomed.Men almost instinctively resent reproof; they do not like plain truths about themselves. Light hurts weak eyes; honey burns sore throats. Lais, the Corinthian beauty, broke her mirror because it shewed her wrinkles. This is foolish. I ought to be grateful to any who help me to know myself. When I remember how I shrink from reproving another, I ought to feel deeply indebted to the man who has brought himself to the point of reproving me. Some one has said that no man can be perfect without either a watchful enemy or a faithful friend. Let us value the faithful friend. He may not tickle our vanity, as does the honey-tongued flatterer, who, like Vitellius, worshipped Jehovah at Jerusalem and Caligula at Rome; but he will make us stronger and purer.

ILLUSTRATIONS TO CHAPTER 12

Mar. 12:2. At the season.That was when the clusters were ripe, or perhaps it means the usually arranged period when the tenants, having gathered their grapes, and pressed their clusters, and sold their casks of wine, were able to pay the agreed amount of the profits. The plan seems to resemble the system called metayer in France, where the landowner supplies the land and seed, etc., according to an agreement, and the labourer supplies the culture, and at harvest-time receives for himself two-thirds of the crop, and pays over the other third to the landowner.

Mar. 12:3-9. Insecurity of life in unsettled times.The insecurity of life is reflected by the fierce lawlessness of the peasants who had possession of the vineyard; for that must have been a wild time of which it could be said that they beat, stabbed, or stoned both bands of slaves, ending by killing even the householders son. Nor is it a less vivid indication of general social demoralisation to find the injured owner represented as coming and destroying the criminals, without any reference of the matter to a court of law. The parable must be true to possibilities, else it would have failed to impress, and hence may be accepted as implying a very unsettled state of society in Palestine in those days, at least in districts away from Roman posts. The hideous misery entailed on the whole land by the long civil wars of local pretenders, and, still more, by the awful struggles of the rival claimants to the throne of the world, had brought over wide regions, not in Palestine alone, but in every province of the all-embracing Roman Empire, a dissolution of society, and the destruction of once flourishing communities, which made it the great task of the peaceful age of Augustus to rebuild ruined cities, to bring back to cultivation provinces once filled with a thriving population and rich in all rural industries, to repress and extirpate the lawlessness following in the train of such prolonged social convulsions, and to restore order and the sanctities of a secure public and private life. Over Palestine and Western Asia, including Asia Minor, there was, in fact, a state of things to redress which in a measure anticipated that of the civilised world at large in the fifth century, when the safest retreat of robbers, or the most lonely haunt of the solitary monk fleeing from the evils of the world, was in the ruins of what had not long before been a rich and populous city. Or, if we seek a parallel in modern history, there was such a state of things as remained over Central Europe after the close of the Thirty Years War, the scars and ruin of which are not even yet effaced, after nearly two hundred and fifty years.C. Geikie, D.D.

Ingratitude.At the battle of the Alma, in September 1854, a wounded Russian was calling piteously for water. Captain Eddington, whose heart was kind and charitable, ran to him, and, stooping, gave him a drink. The wounded man revived. The captain ran forward to rejoin his regiment, when the wretch fired and shot him who had befriended him in time of need.

Mar. 12:6-7. Gods longsuffering.The axe carried before the Roman consuls was always bound up in a bundle of rods. An old author tells us that the rods were tied up with knotted cords, and that when an offender was condemned to be punished the executioner would untie the knots one by one, and meanwhile the magistrate would look the culprit in the face, to observe any signs of repentance and watch his words, to see if he could find a motive for mercy; and thus justice went to its work deliberately and without passion. The axe was enclosed in rods to shew that the extreme penalty was never inflicted till milder means had failed; first the rod, and the axe only as a terrible necessity.

Divine forbearance.The Macedonian king, Alexander the Great, who, as in one triumphal march, conquered the world, observed a very singular custom in his method of carrying on war. Whenever he encamped with his army before a fortified city and laid siege to it, he caused to be set up a great lantern, which was kept lighted by day and night. This was a signal to the besieged, and what it meant was that as long as the lamp burned they had time to save themselves by surrender, but that when once the light should be extinguished, the city, and all that were in it, would be irrevocably given over to destruction. And the conqueror kept his word with terrible consistency. When the light was put out, and the city was not given up, all hope of mercy was over. The Macedonians stormed the place, and if it was taken all were cut to pieces who were capable of bearing arms, and there was no quarter or forgiveness possible. Now it is the good pleasure of our God to have compassion and to shew mercy. But a city or a people can arrive at such a pitch of moral corruption that the moral order of the world can only be saved by its destruction. It was so with the whole race of men at the time of the Flood, with Sodom and Gomorrah at a later period, and with the Jewish people in our Saviours time. But before the impending stroke of judgment fell God always, so to speak, set up the lamp of grace, which was not only a signal of mercy, but also a light to shew men that they were in the way of death, and a power to turn them from it.

Gods final effort.I remember one of the poets hath an ingenious fancy to express the Passion, wherewith he found himself overcome after a long resistancethat the God of love had shot all His golden arrows at him, but could never pierce his heart, till at length he put Himself into the bow, and darted Himself straight into his breast. Methinks this doth some way adumbrate Gods method of dealing with men. He had long contended with a stubborn world, and thrown down many a blessing upon them; and when all His other gifts could not prevail, He at last made a gift of Himself, to testify His affections and to engage theirs (Isa. 5:4; Rom. 8:32; Heb. 1:3; Tit. 2:14).H. Scougal.

Christs reception from men.Surely a servant of the government may risk himself in the very heart of a convict prison alone, if he is the bearer of a royal pardon for all the inmates. In such a case it would not be necessary to look out for a man of rare courage who might dare to carry the proclamation to the convicts. Give him but the message of free pardon, and he may go in unarmed with all safety, like Daniel in the den of lions. When Christ Himself came to the worldthe great convict prison of the universecame the Ambassador from God, bringing peacethey said: This is the heir; come, let us kill Him! He came unto His own, and His own received Him not; and the servant is not greater than his Lord.

Mar. 12:9. Responsibility.Daniel Webster was once called upon at a dinner-party in his own house to specify what one thing he had met with in life which had done most for him or had contributed most to his success. After a moment he replied, The most fruitful and elevating influence I have ever seemed to meet with has been my impression of responsibility to God.

Mar. 12:10. The headstone of the corner is a keystone. A keystone is the wedge-shaped stone which keys or binds together the sides of an arch at its top. There is an ancient story that the Temple-builders, in absence of the architect, threw away a keystone because of its peculiar shape. It would not fit anywhere in the walls. Finally its proper place was found, and it was raised to the top of the arch. The stone which the builders rejected became the head of the corner, the keystone of the arch. A beautiful illustration, frequently used, of the rejection and exaltation of Christ. The rejection adds lustre to the glory. Every rejection of Christ turns out the same way: whether rejected by Caiaphas, or Nero, or Voltaire or Paris Commune, He is ever found, ever raised, ever placed higher in the fabric, the headstone of the arch. He has no other place. He fits nowhere else. He is not one fine stone along with the rest, Confucius, Buddha, and Mahomet. He is the keystone, different in kind from the rest. This or nothing. His place is at the top. The whole fabric of history holds Him up to view. He binds together the arch. Without Him the arch must fall in. Without Him the arch is an unsolved problem. He is the keystone; He solves the problem and locks the arch. He is the keystone of history. Previous history comes up to Him on one side, and subsequent history on the other side, and He unites them. He is the centre of history. He is the keystone of religion. Religion is the arch which bridges the chasm between heaven and earth. The God-man touches each side: His Divinity touches the heaven side, His humanity touches the earth side, and the arch is completed, the bridge is effected.

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

3. THE REJECTED SON Matthew 12:1-12

TEXT 12:1-12

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

THOUGHT QUESTIONS 12:1-12

643.

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

644.

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

645.

Why use parables at this time?

646.

Who was represented by the vine-growers?

647.

Who were the servants?

648.

Why was the owner of the vineyard so exceedingly patient?

649.

Did anyone understand the obvious prophetic words about the son?

650.

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

651.

What was the import of the chief corner stone?

652.

If they wanted to seize and kill Him why didnt they do it?

COMMENT

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

PARALLEL ACCOUNTS.Mat. 21:33-46; Luk. 20:9-19.

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

ANALYSIS

I.

THE WICKED HUSBANDMEN, Mar. 12:1-5.

1.

The Vineyard Planted. Mar. 12:1; Mat. 21:33; Luk. 20:9.

2.

Fruits Demanded. Mar. 12:2; Mat. 21:24; Luk. 20:10.

3.

The Lords Servants Persecuted. Mar. 12:3-5; Mat. 21:35-36; Luk. 20:5.

II.

THE SON REJECTED, Mar. 12:6-8.

1.

The Son Chosen. Mar. 12:6; Mat. 21:37; Luk. 20:6.

2.

Evil Counsel. Mar. 12:7; Mat. 21:38 ; Luk. 20:7.

3.

The Son Slain. Mar. 12:8; Mat. 21:39; Luk. 20:8.

III.

JUDGMENT INFLICTED, Mar. 12:9-12.

1.

The Wicked Husbandmen Destroyed. Mar. 12:9; Mat. 21:16; Luk. 20:9.

2.

The Rejected Stone. Mar. 12:10; Mat. 21:42; Mat. 21:44; Luk. 21:10.

INTRODUCTION

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

EXPLANATORY NOTES

I.

THE WICKED HUSBANDMEN.

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

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

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

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

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

II.

THE SON REJECTED.

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

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

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

III.

JUDGMENT INFLICTED.

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

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

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

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

FACT QUESTIONS 12:1-12

717.

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

718.

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

719.

Name the three parables Jesus gave on this Tuesday.

720.

What was the ultimate purpose in these parables?

721.

To whom was this parable addressed?

722.

Who was the certain manwhat was represented by the vineyard?

723.

Give two examples of Israel represented as a vineyard.

724.

What did the wall represent?

725.

What were the two parts to the wine-press?

726.

For what purpose were the towers?

727.

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

728.

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

729.

What is represented by the season?

730.

Elijah, Isaiah and Jeremiah are represented by whom?

731.

Show how the gradual growth of outrage is indicated.

732.

Who was sent empty away?

733.

Which of the prophets did they actually put to death?

734.

In what one act are all the resources of heavens love exhausted and all the measure of mans sin filled up?

735.

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

736.

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

737.

How did the Pharisees pronounce sentence against themselves?

738.

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

739.

How would the builders know which stone was the cornerstone?

740.

Show the importance of the cornerstone.

741.

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

742.

What was marvelous and incredible?

743.

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

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

SUMMARY 11:1 to 12:44

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

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

XII.

(1-12) And he began to speak unto them by parables.See Notes on Mat. 21:33-36. The parable which, like that of the Sower, and like that only, is related in all the first three Gospels, was one which had obviously impressed itself strongly, as that had done, on the minds of those who heard it, and was reproduced by independent reporters with an almost textual exactness.

A place for the winefat.Better, simply, a vine vat.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

Chapter 12

REJECTION AND RETRIBUTION ( Mar 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 Isa 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 ( Jos 14:7). So David was called ( 2Sa 3:18). And the title occurs regularly in the books of the prophets ( Amo 3:7, Jer 7:25, Zec 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 ( Lev 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 Psa 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 Act 4:11, 1Pe 2:4; 1Pe 2:7, Rom 9:32-33, Eph 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 ( Mar 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 ( Gen 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 ( Mar 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 Deu 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 Exo 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 ( 1Co 2:9) when he took the words of the prophet ( Isa 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.” ( Psa 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 ( Mar 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 Psa 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. ( Isa 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. ( Mic 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. ( Isa 56:1.)

1. Keep justice.

2. Do righteousness.

Finally Habakkuk reduced them all to one. ( Hab 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 ( Deu 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 Deu 6:4-9, Deu 11:13-21, Num 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 ( Mat 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 Deu 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 Lev 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 ( Dan 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.” ( 1Sa 15:22.) Hosea had heard God say, “I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice.” ( Hos 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 ( Mar 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 Mar 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 Psa 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. ( Isa 9:2-7, Isa 11:1-9, Jer 23:5 ff, Jer 33:14-18, Eze 34:23 ff, Eze 37:24, Psa 89:20 ff.) It was by that title that Jesus himself was often addressed, especially by the crowds ( Mar 10:47 ff, Mat 9:27, Mat 12:23, Mat 15:22, Mat 21:9; Mat 21:15). All through the New Testament the conviction that Jesus was in fact the son of David in his physical descent occurs ( Rom 1:3, 2Ti 2:8, Mat 1:1-17, Luk 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 ( Mar 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 Num 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 Mat 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 ( Mar 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)

Fuente: Barclay Daily Study Bible

113. DISCOURSE WITH CHIEF PRIESTS, ETC., IN THE TEMPLE, Mar 11:27 to Mar 12:12 .

1-12. See our notes on Mat 21:33-45.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘And he began to speak to them in parables, “A man planted a vineyard, and set a hedge about it, and dug a pit for the winepress, and built a tower and let it out to tenant farmers and went into another country.’

‘He began to speak to them.’ In context this clearly means to the deputation from the Sanhedrin (see Mar 12:12). But as the whole incident had taken place in front of crowds of people it also included the crowds all around (see also Mar 12:12; Luk 20:9).

‘In parables.’ That is ‘parabolically’, in a riddle, here a story with a hidden meaning.

The owner planted a vineyard, and then in anticipation of its fruitfulness gave it a protective hedge, dug a pit in the rock where the grapes could be trodden to produce the wine, the juice flowing into a specially prepared cavity, and built a tower as a store room and to be used as a useful watchtower so that the vineyard could be well protected against jackals and thieves. Then he let it out to tenants. This detail would remind His hearers of the similar detail in Isaiah 5, where Isaiah demonstrated that the vineyard was Israel, that the owner was God Himself and that its fruit would be ‘wild grapes’, although the grapes are not taken up in this story. By Jesus the responsibility is put on the vinedressers. His concern here was with the behaviour of those who oversaw the vineyard, and the crowd were actually on His side.

The initial detail of the parable was in order to stress that God had made full provision for His people. We can take the lesson for ourselves that when God begins a work He makes ample provision for it. Any failure can therefore only be blamed on those who misuse it.

In the Targum of Isaiah (the Aramaic paraphrase of the Hebrew Scriptures) the tower is interpreted as the Temple. Thus many of His listeners would recognise the association of what He was saying with the Temple, and that His words thus included those who ran the Temple.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The Parable of the Wicked Tenant Farmers (12:1-12).

In the section chiasmus this parable parallels the story of the blind man who saw Jesus as the Son of David, had his eyes opened, and took the way of discipleship. In this parable the tenants, who represent the Jerusalem leadership, prove in contrast themselves to be ‘blind’ and are unwilling to acknowledge ‘the son’.

The idea of Israel as a vineyard is found regularly in the Old Testament. In Isa 5:1-7 we have a similar opening to this. And there the choicest vine was planted and it produced wild grapes, so that it was ripe for judgment. And that vineyard and vine were Israel and Judah (Compare also for the idea of Israel as a vineyard Psa 80:8-16; Jer 2:21-22; Hos 9:10). The difference here is that the emphasis is on the sinfulness of the leadership.

Any sensible reading of this parable must recognise certain detailed applications within it. It was hardly possible for an outstanding teacher and prophet like Jesus to tell it without His listeners recognising that it was based on a number of Scriptures, demonstrating that detailed application was required, and that it led up to Himself as the son.

The differences between the parable as presented by each of the three Synoptics probably indicate that the parable was told a number of times in slightly varied form as Jesus continued to teach the crowds that week. He was continually teaching every day, and as with the disciples, but in more vague form, by it He was preparing the people for His coming death. It was a lesson that He would want emphasised by repetition. We already know from the way in which He has earlier repeated ‘parabolic ideas’ in different contexts that He favoured repetition, and the huge amount of teaching that would otherwise have to be seen as left inexplicably unrecorded demands it. Thus to seek an ‘original form’ is both unnecessary and a waste of time. What we should rather notice is the different emphases.

Analysis.

a And He began to speak to them in parables, “A man planted a vineyard, and set a hedge about it, and dug a pit for the winepress, and built a tower and let it out to tenant farmers and went into another country” (Mar 12:1).

b “And at the season he sent a servant to the tenant farmers so that he might receive from the tenant farmers some of the fruit of the vineyard. And they took him and beat him, and sent him away empty handed” (Mar 12:2-3).

c “And again he sent to them another servant, and they wounded him in the head and handled him shamefully. And he sent another, and him they killed. And he sent many others, and some they beat and some they killed” (Mar 12:4-5).

d “And he had yet one, a beloved son. He sent him last to them saying, ‘They will treat my son with due honour’ (Mar 12:6).

c “But those tenant farmers said among themselves, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours’ ” (Mar 12:7).

b “And they took him and killed him and threw his body out of the vineyard” (Mar 12:8).

a “What therefore will the lord of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the tenant farmers and will give the vineyard to others” (Mar 12:9).

Note that in ‘a’ he lets out the vineyard to tenant farmers, and in the parallel he takes it from them and gives it to others. In ‘b he wants to receive the fruit of his vineyard, but his servant is expelled from the vineyard, and in the parallel his son is killed and his body is thrown out of the vineyard. In ‘c’ they embark on a policy of killing, and in the parallel they plan to kill the heir. Central in ‘d’ is the beloved son whom the own expected would be treated with due honour because of who he was.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Jesus Begins His Final Journey to Jerusalem On The Road To The Cross and Spends Much Time in Teaching His Disciples And Disputing With His Enemies In Readiness For That Event, For He Is Giving His Life As A Ransom For Many (9:33-12:44).

Having returned to Capernaum Jesus now has His face set towards Jerusalem, and in Mar 9:33-50 He will lay the foundation by pointing out the fact that all must look to and respond to His Name, and the dangers inherent in not doing so. Then He will advance into Judaea, and by Mar 10:32 His journey to Jerusalem is clearly well under way. He will, of course, continue to prepare His disciples for what lies ahead, but it does not mean that He will neglect seekers. Crowds will still gather to hear Him and He will minister to them (Mar 10:1). And then once He reaches Jerusalem and enters in triumph (Mar 11:1-17) the opposition will become loud and clear as He refutes and puts to flight His opponents (Mar 11:27 to Mar 12:44). But He is well aware that their rejection of Him can only mean one thing. They will determine to put Him to death (Mar 11:18).

Analysis of 9:33-12:44. Jesus’ Ministry from Capernaum to Jerusalem.

a The disciples are caught out discussing which of them is the greatest, and learn that those who would be greatest must be the servant of all, being receptive even of little children  in His Name  (Mar 9:33-37).

b They must receive those whose successful activity  in His Name  proves their genuineness even though they do not directly follow them (Mar 9:38-40).

c One who gives a cup of cold water to a disciple because he bears  the Name of the Messiah  will not lose his reward (Mar 9:41).

d Jesus describes those who are especially displeasing to God. It is those who cause others who  believe in Jesus  to sin, and He emphasises the necessity of avoiding such behaviour at whatever cost, for such people are bound for Gehenna (Mar 9:42-50).

e Jesus speaks about marriage and divorce. Faithfulness in marriage is a creation ordinance binding in this world and must be restored (Mar 10:1-12).

f Those who do not receive the Kingly Rule of God like a little child will not enter it. The example is given of the rich young man, and the danger of riches, which must be put completely at God’s service, is emphasised (Mar 10:13-31).

g Jesus will be rejected, arrested, sentenced and executed, but will rise again (Mar 10:32-34).

h God’s servants prove to be self-seeking. First James and John, and then all the disciples, reveal that their motives concerning the Kingly Rule of God are wrong, and learn that they should be true servants like the Son of Man Who came to give His life a ransom for many (Mar 9:35-45).

i Jesus heals a blind man who recognises Him as the son of David and reveals His authority by entering Jerusalem on an asses’ colt, where the crowds also hail Him as the son of David, but Jerusalem is blind to His true worth (Mar 10:46 to Mar 11:10).

j Jesus looks round the Temple, and then looks at the fig tree (a symbol of the Temple) and declares it fruitless. No one will ever eat fruit of it again (Mar 11:11-14).

k Jesus cleanses the Temple because it is meant to be a House of Prayer for all nations, and arouses the hostility of the Chief Priests (Mar 11:15-19).

j The fig tree is found to be withered and Jesus speaks of casting a mountain into the sea, symbolic of judgment on Jerusalem which has ceased to fulfil its purpose (Mar 11:20-26).

i Jesus is asked concerning His authority and demonstrates the hypocrisy of the question by demonstrating the blindness of the Sanhedrin concerning John the Baptiser (Mar 11:27-33).

h The parable concerning the false servants who are blind to the truth and who fail to render their due and therefore kill the son because they do not want to submit to him (Mar 12:1-11).

g The stone which the builders rejected will be made the chief cornerstone. They try to arrest Jesus, but fail (Mar 12:12).

f The question of payment of tribute raises the question of the need to give to God what is His and of the right use of riches (Mar 12:13-17).

e Jesus is challenged on a matter concerning marriage. In the resurrection world there is no marriage (Mar 12:18-27).

d Jesus describes those who are totally pleasing to God because they love God and their neighbour. People who see and respond to this enter the Kingly Rule of God (Mar 12:28-34).

c Jesus cites a Psalm of David in order to demonstrate that the Messiah is David’s lord (Mar 12:35-37).

b They are to beware of those who make much of themselves and put on a pretence of piety (Mar 12:38-40).

a The widow who gives her all, even though it be a pittance, gives more than all who give bountifully from their riches (Mar 12:41-44).

Note that in ‘a’ it is those who are humble in His Name who are the greatest, and in the parallel the widow who gives two small coins is the greatest giver. In ‘b’ they must receive all who genuinely operate in His Name and in the parallel they are to beware of those who instead make much of themselves. In ‘c’ even to give a cup of cold water in the Name of the Messiah will be rewarded, and in the parallel the Messiah is seen to be David’s Lord. In ‘d’ those who cause little ones who believe in Him to sin will receive the greatest condemnation and enter Gehenna, while in the parallel those who truly love God and their neighbour will enter the Kingly Rule of Heaven. In ‘e’ marriage is reinstated on earth, and in the parallel it does not take place in Heaven. In ‘f’ response to God must come before wealth, and in the parallel men must give what is due to God. In ‘g’ Jesus declares that He will be rejected, arrested, sentenced and executed, but will rise again, and in the parallel the stone which the builders rejected is to be made the chief cornerstone and an attempt is made to arrest Him which fails. But their intent is clear. In ‘h’ the eyes of the disciples need to be opened to what their true responsibilities are and to Who He is, and in the parable the wicked tenants also fail to recognise their responsibilities and are blind to Who He is. In ‘i’ Jesus reveals His authority by riding into Jerusalem on an asses’ colt, and in the parallel He is questioned concerning that authority and rebuts His questioners. In ‘j’ Jesus looks round the Temple, and then at the fig tree, and recognises that both are fruitless, and in the parallel the fruitless fig tree has withered and the mountain will be cast into the sea. Centrally in ‘k’ the Lord suddenly comes to His Temple. He cleanses the Temple in order that it might be a house of prayer.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Jesus Approaches Jerusalem and Enters It As A Proclamation Of Who He Is, Cleanses The Temple, Depicts Its Coming Demise By Means Of The Withering of The Fig Tree, Enters Into Dispute With His Opponents, And Reveals Them As Those Who Are Like Faithless Tenants Of A Vineyard Rejecting Even The Son (10:46-12:12).

Along with the festal crowds proceeding to the Passover in Jerusalem along the Jericho Road Jesus now passes through Jericho on the way to Jerusalem, which He intends to enter as the Prince of Peace, purifying the Temple from its extravagances which are wrecking true worship for the Gentiles, and facing down His opponents who challenge what He is doing, pointing out that they are like false tenants of a vineyard who even reject the owner’s son. But none need fear, for the stone that the builders are rejecting is to be made the Cornerstone of the whole building.

Analysis.

a As Jesus approaches Jerusalem along the Jericho Road He is acknowledged by a blind man as the Son of David, and He restores his physical sight (Mar 10:46-52).

b He enters Jerusalem on an ass, revealing His authority and proclaiming Himself to be the Prince of Peace of Zec 9:9, and is greeted by the crowds in the name of the son of David (Mar 11:1-10).

c Jesus looks round the Temple, and then examines a fig tree seeking for fruit and finds none. He declares that it will never bear again (Mar 11:11-14).

d Jesus cleanses the court of the Gentiles in the Temple because it is intended to be a House of Prayer for all nations, not a den of brigands (Mar 11:15-19).

c The fig tree is found to be withered, and Jesus uses it as symbolic of Jerusalem which is to come under the judgment of God because of its fruitlessness which is in contrast to the burgeoning faith of the disciples (Mar 11:20-26).

b Jesus is questioned as to His authority to do what He has done, and reveals the perfidy of His questioners because they will not speak out honestly (Mar 11:27-33).

a He tells a parable which reveals the unwillingness of the ‘tenants’ of Israel to acknowledge the Son. They are revealed as spiritually blind (Mar 12:1-12).

Note that in ‘a’ the blind man acknowledges the Son of David, while in the parallel those who should have acknowledged Him refuse to do so because of their spiritual blindness. In ‘b’ Jesus reveals His authority by His actions and is acknowledged by the crowds, and in the parallel He is challenged as to that authority and rejected by Jewish authorities. In ‘c’ He declares that the fig tree (and the Temple) will never bear fruit again, and in the parallel the fig tree is withered and the Temple’s judgment is announced. Centrally in ‘d’ God has suddenly come to His Temple and has revealed its true condition, and that it is not what it should be.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The Parable of the Wicked Vinedressers ( Mat 21:23-46 , Luk 20:9-19 ) – Mar 12:1-12 gives us the account of Jesus teaching the Parable of the Wicked Vinedressers to those who were in the Temple.

Mar 12:1  And he began to speak unto them by parables. A certain man planted a vineyard, and set an 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.

Mar 12:1 Comments Mar 12:1 provides a description of the ideal farm. The grapevines have been planted. A hedge, perhaps of stone, has been built around the vineyard to protect it from unwanted wildlife The wine vat has been built to press the grapes into juice. The tower has been built for the watchman to look over the vineyard for unwanted intruders.

Mar 12:12 Comments The Parable of the Wicked Vinedressers describes the Jews rejecting the Gospel of Jesus Christ, so God allowed Jerusalem to be destroyed by Titus in A.D. 70. He sent the Gospel far to the Gentiles, who embraced the Messiah as God’s Son and the Church grew and spread over the earth.

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

The Preaching Ministry of Jesus Christ Mar 1:14 to Mar 13:37 describes the preaching ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ as well as the miracles that accompanying the proclamation of the Gospel. His public ministry can be divided into sections that reflect God’s divine plan of redemption being fulfilled in Jesus’s life.

Outline Here is a proposed outline:

1. Indoctrination – The Preaching of Jesus Christ in Galilee Mar 1:14 to Mar 4:34

2. Divine Service Training the Twelve in Galilee Mar 4:35 to Mar 6:13

3. Perseverance: Preaching against Man’s Traditions Mar 6:14 to Mar 7:23

4. Perseverance – Beyond Galilee Mar 7:24 to Mar 9:50

5. Glorification – In Route to and in Jerusalem Mar 10:1 to Mar 13:37

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Narrative When we examine Jesus’ ministry to His disciples in Mar 10:1 to Mar 12:44, we find Him teaching them how to enter into the Kingdom of God. He warns them on the dangers of adultery (Mar 10:1-12) and on covetousness towards riches for those who desire to inherit eternal life (Mar 10:17-31) as hindrances to entering Heaven. Jesus teaches on humility by explaining that a person must become as a little child in order to enter Heaven (Mar 10:12-16). Because the disciples thought that Jesus was about to be immediately glorified as king in Jerusalem, James and John asked for a share of this glorification (Mar 10:35-45). He also replies to the request of James and John to be seated at His right and left hand in the Kingdom. In His Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem, the people praise Jesus as their king (Mar 11:1-11). However, Jesus has tried to prepare His disciples for his Crucifixion by telling them the third time that He would not be crowned, but rather be killed and rise the third day (Mar 10:32-34).

The narrative material in Mar 10:1 to Mar 12:44 contains only one miraculous healing, when Jesus heals blind Bartimaeus (Mar 10:46-52), and the miracle of the withered fig tree (Mar 11:20-26). When Jesus cleanses the Temple, He calls to a house of prayer for all nations, which refers to the time during the Millennial Reign of Christ on earth when all nations will come and worship Him in Jerusalem (Mar 11:15-19). He tells the people of the Parable of the Wicked Vinedressers, which refers to His rejecting and crucifixion at the hand of the Jews and His Second Coming (Mar 12:1-12).

Outline: Here is a proposed outline:

1. Jesus In Judea Mar 10:1-52

2. Jesus In Jerusalem Mar 11:1 to Mar 12:44

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Glorification In Mar 10:1 to Mar 13:37 the emphasis moves from perseverance to glorification, where Jesus makes many references to His Second Coming.

Outline Here is a proposed outline:

1. Narrative Mar 10:1 to Mar 12:44

2. Sermon: Jesus Preaches on Eschatology Mar 13:1-37

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Jesus in Jerusalem Mar 11:1 to Mar 12:44 records Jesus’ final ministry in Jerusalem as He teaches in the Temple and is tempted by questions from religious leaders in front of the people.

Outline Here is a proposed outline:

1. The Triumphal Entry Mar 11:1-11

2. Jesus Curses the Fig Tree Mar 11:12-14

3. Jesus Cleanses the Temple Mar 11:15-19

4. Jesus Teaches About the Withered Fig Tree Mar 11:20-26

5. Jesus Defends His Authority Mar 11:27-33

6. The Parable of the Wicked Vinedressers Mar 12:1-12

7. The Pharisees and Herodians Tempt Jesus Mar 12:13-17

8. The Sadducees Tempt Jesus Mar 12:18-27

9. The Scribes Tempt Jesus Mar 12:28-34

10. Jesus Teaches the People in the Temple Mar 12:35-40

11. Jesus Teaches on the Widow’s Mites Mar 12:41-44

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

The Parable of the Vineyard.

The vineyard:

v. 1. And He began to speak unto them by parables. A certain man planted a vineyard, and set an hedge about it, and digged a place for the wine fat, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country.

For some time now Jesus had not used the parabolic style of teaching, mainly because He had been teaching His disciples alone. But now He began, He resumed this form of presenting the truth which He wanted to impress, principally upon His enemies that had been challenging His authority. Of the parables which Jesus spoke on that Tuesday, Mark relates only one, that one in which the wickedness of the contemplated murder is shown in the proper light. A vineyard a certain man planted. It was a man of wealth, and incidentally a good business man, as the details of the plan show. Having put in his vines, he drew or set a hedge around the plat to keep out the wild animals. He not only built a wine-press for the treading out of the grapes, but he also constructed under it the vat for receiving the juices that flowed from the wine-press. Finally he built a tower, to serve both for storing the fruit and for watching against thieves and birds. Having thus done all that could be expected of an owner, he let it out, he rented it to certain husbandmen, gardeners, and went on a far journey. The parallelism between this story and that of Isa 5:1-7 must have been evident to the scribes at once. This made the effect of the parable all the more damaging.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

EXPOSITION

Mar 12:1

And he began to speak unto them in parables. This particular parable which follows was specially directed against the scribes and Pharisees; but it was uttered in the presence of a multitude of the people. “He began to speak in parables.” He had not used this form of instruction till now in Jerusalem. A man planted a vineyard. The imagery of the parable would be familiar to them from Isaiah (Isa 5:1). But Palestine was eminently a land of “vineyards,” as well as of “oil olives.” The man who planted the vineyard is no other than God himself. “Thou hast brought a vine” out of Egypt; thou hast cast out the heathen, and planted it.” The imagery is specially appropriate. No property was considered to yield so rich a return as the vineyard, and none required such unceasing care and attention. The vine represents the kingdom of God in its idea and conception; not the Jewish Church in particular. The owner of this vineyard had himself made it. He had “planted it.” This planting took place in the establishment of the Jewish polity in the land of Canaan, when the heathen were cast out. He set a hedge about it. This and the following descriptions are not mere ornaments of the parable. The “hedge” was an important protection to the vineyard. It might be a wall or a “quick hedge,” a living fence. The vineyards in the East may now be seen often with a strong hedge planted round them. Such hedges, made of the prickly cactus, are to be seen at this day in the neighborhood of Joppa. Figuratively, this hedge would represent the middle wall of partition which then existed between the Jew and the Gentile; and in this, their separation from the idolatrous nations around them, lay the security of the Jews that they should enjoy the continued protection of God. It is well remarked by Archbishop Trench that the geographical position of Judaea was figurative of this, the spiritual separation of the peopleguarded as Judaea was eastward by the river Jordan and its chain of lakes, northward by Antilibanus, southward by the desert and Idumaea, and westward by the Mediterranean Sea. Digged a place for the winepress ( torcular); the words are literally, digged a pit for the winepress ( ); the digging could only apply to the pit, a place hollowed out and then fitted with masonry. Sometimes these pits were formed out of the solid rock. Examples of these are frequent in Palestine. There were usually two pits hollowed out of the rock, one sloping to the other, and with openings between them. The grapes were placed in the upper pit; and the juice, crushed out by the feet of men, flowed into the lower pit, from whence it was taken out and put into wine-skins. “I have trodden the winepress alone.” And built a tower. The tower () was probably the watch-tower, where a watchman was placed to guard the vineyard from plunderers. Particular directions are given in the rabbinical writings (see Lightfoot) for the dimensions both of the winepress and of the tower. The tower was to be ten cubits high and four cubits square. It is described as “a high place, where the vine-dresser stands to overlook the vineyard.” Such towers are still to be seen in Palestine, especially in the neighborhood of Bethlehem, of Hebron, and in the vine-growing districts of Lebanon. And let it out to husbandmen. The husbandmen would be the ordinary stated teachers of the people, though not excluding the people themselves. The Jewish nation in fact, both the teachers and the taught, represented the husbandmen, each member of the Church, then as now, being required to seek the welfare of the whole, body. And went into a far country ( ); literally, and went into another country. St. Luke (Luk 20:9) adds ( ), “for a long time.”

Mar 12:2-5

And at the season he sent to the husbandmen a servant, that he might receive from the husbandmen of the fruits of the vineyard. St. Matthew (Mat 21:34) says he sent “his servants.” St. Mark mentions them in detail. These servants were the prophets, as Isaiah, Jeremiah, and others, whom the Jews persecuted and slew in different ways, as the reprovers of their vices. But the mercy of God was long-suffering, and still triumphed over their wickedness. In his account of this parable St. Mark is very minute. The first servant that was sent received no fruit, and was beaten. The second received much worse usage. According to the Authorized Version the words are, At him they cast stones, and wounded him in the head, and sent him away shamefully handled ( ). The word is, however, not to be found in the best authorities; and the right reading of the next word is apparently a very unusual word; but the context makes it plain that it expresses some injury done to the head. The other form of the word is usual enough; but it ordinarily signifies “a summing up,” “a gathering up into a head.” And handled shamefully ); literally, dishonored. The third messenger they killed outright. The words run. And him they killed; and many others; beating some, and killing some. The construction here is incomplete, although the meaning is plain. The complete sentence would be, “And him they killed; and they did violence to many others, beating some and killing some.”

Mar 12:6-8

Having yet therefore one son, his well-beloved. There is strong evidence in favor of a different reading here: namely ( ), he had yet one, a beloved son. There is something very touching in this form of expression. Many messages had been sent; many means had been tried. But one other resource remained. “There is one, a beloved on. I will send him; they will, surely reverence him ( ). They will reflect, and reflection will bring shame and submission and reverence.” This was the last effort of Divine mercythe sending of the Incarnate God, whom the Jews put to death without the city. St. Mark’s words seem rather to imply that they killed him within the vineyard, and cast out the dead body. But it is possible that in his narrative he mentions the climax firstthey killed him, and then returns to a detail of the dreadful tragedy; they cast him out of the vineyard, and there slew him (See Mat 21:39.)

Mar 12:9

What therefore will the lord of the vineyard do? In St. Matthew’s narrative the scribes answer this question. St. Luke, as St. Mark here, assigns the answer to our Lord. It would seem probable that the scribes first answered him, and that then he himself repeated their answer, and confirmed it by his looks and gesture; so that from thence, as well as from what followed, they might sufficiently understand that he spake these things of them. Then, according to St. Luke (Luk 20:16), they subjoined the words, “God forbid!” an expression wrung from their consciences, which accused them and told them that the parable applied to them. Here, then, we have a distinct prediction of the rejection of the Jews and the call of the Gentiles.

Mar 12:10, Mar 12:11

This quotation is from Psa 118:22, where David prophesies of Christ. The meaning is plainly this, that the chief priests and scribes, as the builders of the Jewish Church, rejected Christ from the building as a useless stone; yea, morethey condemned and crucified him. They rejected him (). The verb in the Greek implies that the stone was first examined and then deliberately refused. But this stone, thus disallowed and set at nought by the builders, was made the head of the corner. The image here is different from that used in the Epistles, where Christ is spoken of as the chief Corner-stone in the foundation. Here he is represented as the Corner-stone in the cornice. In real truth he is both. He is the tried Foundation-stone. But he is also the Head of the corner. In the great spiritual building he is “all and in all,” uniting and binding together all in one. This was the Lord’s doing ( ); literally, this was from the Lord. The feminine () refers apparently to . This lifting up of the despised and rejected stone to be the Corner-stone of the cornice was God’s work; and was a fitting object for wonder and praise.

Mar 12:12

The scribes and Pharisees knew, partly from the words of this psalm, and partly from the looks of Christ, that they were spoken against them. So they sought in their rage and malice to lay hold on him; but they feared the people, with whom he was still popular. Thus, however, by his rebuke of the scribes and Pharisees, he prepared the way for that death which, within three days, they brought upon him. And the counsel of God was fulfilled for the redemption of men by the blood of Christ.

Mar 12:13, Mar 12:14

St. Matthew (Mat 22:15) tells us that “the Pharisees took counsel how they might ensnare him ( ) in his talk;” namely, by proposing to him captious and insidious questions, which, in whatever way he might answer them, might expose him to danger. On this occasion they enlisted the Heredians to join them in their attack upon him. These Herodians were a sect of the Jews who supported the house of Herod, and were in favor of giving tribute to the Roman Caesar. They were so called at first from Herod the Great, who was a great supporter of Caesar. Tertullian, St. Jerome, and others say that these Herodiaus thought that Herod was the promised Messiah, because they saw that in him the scepter had departed from Judah (Gen 49:10). Herod encouraged these flatterers, and so put to death the infants at Bethlehem, that he might thus get rid of Christ, lest any other than himself might be regarded as Christ. They said at it was on this account that he rebuilt the temple with so much magnificence. The Pharisees took, of course, altogether the other side, and stood forward as the supporters of the Law of Moses and of their national freedom. So, in order that they might ensnare him, they sent to him their disciples with the Herodians, and in the most artful manner proposed to him, apparently in good faith, a question which answer it how he might, would, as they hoped, throw him upon the horns of a dilemma. If he said that tribute ought to be given to Caesar, he would expose himself to the malice of the Jewish people, who prided themselves upon their freedom. If, on the other hand, he said that tribute ought not to be given to Caesar, he would incur the wrath of Caesar and of the Roman power.

Mar 12:15, Mar 12:16

St. Matthew (Mat 22:18) says, “But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?’ You pretend that you are approaching me with a good conscience, sincerely desirous to know how you ought to act in this matter; when at the same time you are enemies alike of me and of God, and are thirsting for my blood, and are doing all in your power to torment me, and to entangle me by fraud. “The first virtue,” says St. Jerome, “of the respondent is to know the mind of the questioner, and to adapt his answer accordingly.” These Pharisees and Heredians flatter Christ that they may destroy him; but he rebukes them, that, if possible, be might save them. Bring me a penny, that I may see it. The Roman denarius was equal to about eight-pence halfpenny. This was the coin in which the tribute money was to be paid. It had stamped upon it the image of Tiberius Caesar, the then reigning Roman emperor. The cognomen of Caesar was first given to Julius Caesar, from whom it was devolved to his successors. The current coin of the country proved the subjection of the country to him whose image was upon it. Maimonides, quoted by Dr. John Lightfoot, says, “Wheresoever the money of any king is current, there the inhabitants acknowledge that king for their lord.”

Mar 12:17

Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s. It is as though our Lord said, “Since you Jews are now subject to Caesarand there is here this evidence of it, that his coin is current amongst you; you would not use it were you not obliged, because all Gentile rites and symbols are an abhorrence to you;but since Caesar demands nothing of you but his tributethe coin stamped with his own image and nameit is your duty to render to him his own denarius for tribute. But spiritual things, such as worship and obedience, give these to God; for these he demands from you as his right, and by so doing you will offend neither God nor yet Caesar.” Our Lord, in his infinite wisdom, avoids the question altogether whether the Jews were rightly in subjection to the Romans. This was a doubtful question. But there could be no doubt as to the fact that they were tributary. This was made plain by the evidence of the current coin. Now, this being so, it was manifestly the duty of the Jewish people to give to Caesar the tribute money which he demanded of them for the expenses of government, and especially of supporting an army to defend them from their enemies. And it was no less their duty to give their tribute to God, which he in his own right demanded of them as his creatures and faithful subjects. The rights of Caesar are one thing, and those of God are another; and there is nothing that need clash between them. State polity is not opposed to religion, nor religion to state. Tertullian says, “‘Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s;’ that is, give to Caesar his image stamped upon his coin, and give to God his own image stamped upon you; so that while you render to Caesar the coin which is his due, you may render your own self to God.” This wonderful answer of our Lord teaches us that we ought to try to speak so wisely, and so to moderato our speech amongst those who are captious, that we may, if possible, offend neither side, but steer safely between Scylla and Charybdis. And they marvelled at him. The true Greek reading of the verb here is not , but , they marvelled greatly at him; they stood marvelling greatly at him. They marvelled at his wisdom and skill in extricating himself so readily out of this net in which they had hoped to entangle him. Indeed, the words of the psalmist (Psa 9:15) were verified in them: “The wicked is snared in the work of his own hands.” He vaulted over the trap set for him, leaving them entangled in it. He lifted up the question far above the petty controversy of the hour, and affirmed a great principle of natural and religious obligation which belongs alike to all times and persons and places.

Mar 12:18-23

And there come unto him Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection. Josephus states that in the time of Judas Maceabaeus there were three sects of the Jews, differing amongst themselves, namely, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes. The Hebrew word Zadoc, from which the Sadducees derive their name, means “just.” or” righteous.” These Sadducees accepted the Pentateuch, and probably more than the Pentateuch; but they rejected any oral tradition. They were known in the time of our Lord as denying those doctrines which connect us more immediately with another world, such as the existence of spirits and of angels, and the resurrection of the body. They altogether denied fate, affirming that all things are in our own power. They heard Christ preach the resurrection, and by means of it persuade men to repentance and a holy life. They therefore proposed to him a question which appeared to them to be fatal to the doctrine of a future state and a resurrection. The case supposed is that of seven brethren, who, in compliance with the Law of Moses, one after another, as each died in succession, took the same woman to wife. It is probable that such a case may actually have occurred; at any rate, it was a possible case. And the question founded upon it by the Sadducees was thisWhose wife would she be of them in the resurrection? Here, then, they hoped to entangle him, and to show that the doctrine of the resurrection was absurd. For if our Lord should say that in the resurrection she would be the wife of one only, the other brethren would have been excited to envy and continual strife. Nor could he have said that she would be common to the seven brothers. Such were the absurdities which, as they intimated, would flow out of his doctrine of the resurrection, if it could be proved. But our Lord scatters to the winds all this foolish reasoning, by adding one clause omitted by them, and overlooked by men of mere earthly minds, namely, that in the world to come this widow would be the wife of none of the seven brethren.

Mar 12:24

These Sadducees erred in two ways:

(1) They did not know or remember the Scriptures, such as that in Job (Job 21:25), “I know that my Redeemer liveth,” etc., or in Isaiah (Isa 26:19), “Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise;” or in Daniel (Dan 12:2), “Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake,” etc.

(2) They did not know the power of God, namely, that he can raise the bodies of the dead again to life, even as at first he created them out of nothing; for a greater power is required to make that to be which was not, than to make that again to be which once was. But then the resurrection life will be a new life, spiritual, glorious, eternal, like that of the angels.

So in these words our Lord struck at the double root of the error of the Sadducees:

(1) ignorance of the Scriptures, which plainly teach the resurrection; and

(2) ignorance of the power of God, which led them to interpret these Scriptures, which speak of the resurrection, to mean only a mystical resurrection from vice to virtue.

Mar 12:25

But are as angels in heavennot “the angels;” the is omitted. The blessed, after the resurrection, will be like angels as to purity, as to a spiritual life, as to immortality, as to happiness and glory. There will be no necessity for marriages in heaven. Here, on earth, the father dies, but he lives on in his children after death. In heaven there is no death, but every one will live and be blessed for ever; and therefore it is that St. Luke adds here, “Neither can they die any more.” St. Augustine says, “Marriages are on account of children; children on account of succession; succession on account of death. But in heaven, as there is no death, neither is there any marriage.”

Mar 12:26

St. Mark is here careful to state that what St. Matthew describes as “the word spoken by God” was to be found in the book of Moses (Exo 3:5), in the place concerning the Bush ( ), as it is correctly rendered in the Revised Version. Our Lord might have brought yet clearer proofs out of Job, Daniel, Ezekiel, etc.; but in his wisdom he preferred to allege this out of Moses and the Pentateuch, because, whatever the views of the Sadducees may have been as to other parts of the Old Testament, these books of Moses they readily acknowledged. I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. The force of the argument is this, that “God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” Their souls are still alive; and if these patriarchs are still alive, there will be a resurrection. If men are to live for ever, they will, sooner or later, live again in the completeness of their being, namely, of body and soul and spirit. Our Lord would, therefore, say this: “In a few days you will put me to death; but in three days I shall rise again from the dead. And after that, in due time I shall raise them from the dead at the last day, and bring them in triumph with me into heaven.” The Sadducees and the Epicureans denied the resurrection, because they denied the immortality of the soul; for these two doctrines hang together. For if the soul is immortal, then, since it naturally depends upon the body, it is necessary that the body should rise. Otherwise the soul would continue to exist in a dislocated state, and would only obtain a divided life and an imperfect existence. Hence our Lord here distinctly proves the resurrection of the body from the immortality of the soul. When he speaks of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, he does not speak of their souls only, but of their whole being. Therefore, though they are for a time dead to us, yet they live to God, and sleep, as it were, because ere long God will raise them from death, as from a sleep, to a blessed and endless life. For all, though they have passed out of our sight, still live to him.

Mar 12:27

Ye therefore do greatly err. The Greek is, omitting the , simply , Ye greatly err. The omission is more consistent with St. Mark’s usual style. The Sadducees entirely misunderstood the meaning of their own Scriptures.

Mar 12:28

St. Matthew (Mat 22:34) says here that the Pharisees, when they heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, gathered themselves together, and that then one of them, who was a lawyer (), that is, “a scribe,” asked him this question, What commandment is the first of all? It appears here from St. Mark that this scribe had been present at the discussion with the Sadducees, and he had probably informed the others of what had taken place, and of the wisdom and power of our Lord’s answer; so he was naturally put forward to try our Lord with another crucial question. It does not necessarily appear that he had an evil intention in putting this question. He may, in his own mind (seeing the wisdom and skill of our Lord), have desired to hear what Christ had to say to a very difficult question on a matter deeply interesting to all true Hebrews. The question was one much mooted amongst the Jews in the time of our Lord. “For many,” says Beds, “thought that the first commandment in the Law related to offerings and sacrifices, with regard to which so much is said in Leviticus, and that the right worship of God consisted in the due offering of these.” On this account the Pharisees encouraged children to say “Corban” to their parents; and hence this candid and truth-loving scribe, when he heard our Lord’s answer about the love of God and of our neighbor, said that such obedience was worth “more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.” With regard to the love of God, St. Bernard says, “The measure of our love to God is to love him without measure; for the immense goodness of God deserves all the love that we can possibly give to him.”

Mar 12:31

Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. God is to be loved above everythingabove all angels, or men, or any created thing. But after God, amongst created things, our neighbor is above all to be loved. And we are to extend to our neighbor that kind of love with which we love ourselves. Our love of ourselves is not a frigid love, but a sincere and ardent love. In like manner we should love our neighbour, and desire for him all those good things both for the body and for the soul that we desire for ourselves. This is what our Lord himself teaches us. “All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, even so do unto them.” There is none other commandment greater than these. St. Matthew (Mat 22:40) says, “On these two commandments hang the whole Law and the prophets.” There is no commandment greater than these, because all the precepts of the Divine Law are included in them. So that our Lord here teaches us that we ought continually to have these two precepts in our minds and before our eyes, and direct all our thoughts and words and actions by them, and regulate our whole life according to them.

Mar 12:32

The first words of this verse should be rendered thus: Of a truth, Master, thou hast well said that he is one. In the remainder of the scribe’s answer we find a different word used in the Greek for” mind,” or “understanding,” from that just used by our Lord. In our Lord’s answer the word is . Here it is . Both words are well rendered by “understanding.” It is an act of understanding. It is the thought associating itself with the object, and “standing under” it so as to support it.

Mar 12:33

Is more ()according to the most approved reading, morethan all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices. This scribe was evidently emerging out of the bondage of ceremonial things, and perceiving the supremacy of the moral law.

Mar 12:34

And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly (), he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. It would appear from this answer that our Lord regarded him as one who approached him with the sincere desire to know the truth, and so he encouraged him. This shows how powerful an influence our Lord’s teaching had already exercised amongst all classes of the Jews. This scribe, notwithstanding the prejudices of his class, had reached the border-land of the kingdom. He had learnt that the true way to the kingdom was by the love of God and of our neighbor. He was not far from the kingdomnot far from “the Church militant here on earth,” by which is the way to the Church triumphant in heaven. He was not far from the kingdom, but still he wanted that which in the true pathway to the kingdomfaith in Christ as the Savior of the world. And no man after that durst ask him any question. St. Matthew (Mat 22:46) places these words after the next occurrence. But there is no inconsistency in the two narratives, because in this next incident our Lord puts the question to them; and this silenced both their questioning and their answering. All felt that there was such a vast reach of wisdom and knowledge in all that he said, that it was in vain to contend with him.

Mar 12:35

Our Lord was now in the temple, and he took the opportunity for instructing the scribes and Pharisees concerning his person and his dignity. Thus, as ever, he returned good for evil. He here taught them that the Messiah was not a mere man, as they supposed, but that he was i both God and man, and that therefore they ought not to wonder or to be offended because he called himself the Son of God. St. Matthew (Mat 22:42) more fully gives their answer first, namely, that “Christ is the Son of David.” They should have said that, as God, he was the Son of God, according to those words, “Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee;” but that, as man, he was the Son of David. Their answer was very different from that of Peter: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” But they wanted the Divine knowledge which the disciples had gained.

Mar 12:36

The Lord said unto my Lord. From this verse (Psa 110:1-7.) our Lord shows that the Messiah, such as he was, was not a mere man, as the Pharisees thought, but that he was God, and therefore David’s Lord. The meaning, therefore, is this, “The Lord God said to my Lord,” that is, Christ, “Sit thou at my right hand,” that is, when, after his cross, his death, and his resurrection, he will exalt him far above all principality and power, and place him next to him in heaven, that he may reign with supreme happiness and power and glory over all creatures. These words show that this is a Divine decree, fixed and irrevocable. Till I make thine enemies thy footstool ( ); literally, the footstool of thy feet; that is, reign with me in glory until the day of judgment, when I will make the wicked, all opposing powers, subject to thee. The word “till” does not imply that Christ will then cease to reign. “Of his kingdom there shall be no end.” But he will then formally deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father, only that he may receive it again as the second Person of the Godhead.

Mar 12:38, Mar 12:39

These verses are a condensation of the woes recorded at length by St. Matthew (Mat 23:1-39.). And he said unto them in his doctrine ( )literally, in his teachingBeware of the scribes which desire ( ) to walk in long robes ( ). The was a rich robe which reached down to the ankles, and was adorned with fringes. The scribes took pleasure in this kind of display. The salient points in their character were ostentation, avarice, and religious hypocrisy.

Mar 12:40

There is a change in the construction here, which is not marked in the Authorized Version. The sentence in this fortieth verse should stand alone, and be read thus: They which devour ( ) widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayers; these shall receive greater condemnation. The sentence thus read is far more graphic. The statement thus becomes indeed more general, but the reference is still to the scribes who through their avarice swallowed up the property of helpless widows, and through their hypocrisy, in the hope of thus more effectually imposing upon their victims, lengthened out their prayers. Greater condemnation. The word in the Greek is , that is, “judgment.” A severer sentence would fall upon them in the day of judgment and a heavier condemnation, because, under the semblance of piety, they practiced iniquity, and indulged their avarice under the mask of religion.

Mar 12:41

He sat down over against the treasury (, from , a Persian word meaning “treasure,” and , to guard). This was the receptacle into which the offerings of the people were east, for the uses of the temple and for the benefit of the priests and of the poor. Hence that part of the temple in which these gifts were kept was called the treasury. He beheld ()literally, he was beholding; he was observinghow the multitude that is, in what manner, with what motives (for he was the heart-searcher) the crowd of giverscast money ( ); literally, is casting St. Luke uses the term ( ) “their gifts.” Many that were rich cast in much (), that is, “many pieces.” There were several apertures in the treasury, which from their shape were called trumpets. Some of these had special inscriptions, marking the destination of the offerings.

Mar 12:42

A poor widow ( ); literally, one poor widow; one specially singled out for notice. St. Luke says, : literally, a widow who supported herself by her own little labor. And she cast in two mites (), which make a farthing. The farthing was the fourth part of an as, and ten of these made a denarius. The Greek word () means literally “thin pieces.”

Mar 12:43, Mar 12:44

This poor widow hath cast in more. The right reading of the verb here is , not ; this aoristic rendering has very good authoritythis poor widow cast in more. Her act is completed, and has gone up for a memorial before God. She “gave” more than all the others who are casting ( ), not “have cast in ( ).” She gave more, when she threw in those two mites, than all the others were givingmore, that is, in the estimation of him who sees not as man sees. God does not weigh the gift so much as the mind of the giver. That gift is really the greater in his sight, not which is actually of greater value, but which is greater in respect of the giver. Therefore this poor widow, when she gave her farthing, gave more than they all, because she gave all her livingall, that is, that she had beforehand for that day, trusting that the Lord would give her her bread for that day. And so she carried off the palm for liberality, Christ himself proudly present, but what you offer with being the Judge. St. Ambrose says, “That humility and devotion.” which God esteems is not that which you proudly present, but what you offer with humility and devotion.

HOMILETICS

Mar 12:1-12

Rebel vine-dressers.

By this time there was no further prospect or possibility that the fate of Jesus might be averted. His entry into Jerusalem in state, and his cleansing of the temple, were acts that the priests, scribes, and Pharisees could not pardon, for they were a claim to authority altogether incompatible with their own. And the words of Jesus were as bold as his acts; their justice and severity enraged the rulers beyond all degree. The enemies of truth and righteousness were by this time fully resolved to strike down him whose character and ministry were the living embodiment of what they most hated. It was only a question of time and manner and instrumentalities. All this Jesus knew, and he knew that “his hour was come.” There was no occasion now for reticence, and there was no longer any end to be subserved by it. His speech was always plain and faithful, but now his denunciations were unsparing, and his warnings terrible. On this Tuesday morning of his last week, our Lord summed up in this parable of “the wicked husbandmen,” “the rebel vine-dressers,” the rebellious history of Israel in the past, and the approaching doom of Israel in the future. It was in the temple precincts, and in the presence both of the people and of the chief priests, that the great Teacher so boldly aserted his own special mission and authority, and so emphatically foretold his own fate and the judgment which should overtake the guilty nation. The immediate application of the parable is clear enough. Israel was the vineyard planted in the election of Abraham, and hedged about and provided with all things needful, in the giving of the Law by Moses and in the settlement in Canaan under Joshua. The Eternal, who had so favored the chosen people, had sent prophets in three periodsthat of Samuel, that of Elijah and Elisha, and that of Isaiah and Jeremiahto summon Israel to a life of spirituality and obedience corresponding with their privileges. The Jews had not fulfilled the Law of God, or rendered to Heaven the fruits meet for repentance. And now he, the Son of God, was among them, the final Embassy from the throne of the great King. It was but too plain to all eyes that the unfruitfulness and rebellion of Israel reached the most awful height just when their advantages were the greatest, and the mercy of the Eternal was most conspicuous. They, who had rejected and slain the prophets, were now plotting against the very Son of God. They were about to put him to death, because he told them the truth and urged the rightful claims and demands of his Father. They might think, and did think, that this would be the end; but such an expectation was delusive: it was incompatible with the righteous government of God. And the Lord plainly foretold them that, as surely as God reigned in heaven and on earth, so surely should the rebellion of Israel be awfully and signally chastised, their special privileges come to a perpetual end, and the blessings which they were rejecting be conferred by God’s sovereign favor upon others, who should render the fruits in their seasons. Forty years afterwards Jerusalem was destroyed, the Jews were scattered, and their national life came to an end; and the kingdom of God was established among the Gentiles. The parable has lessons, not only for Israel, but for us; it embodies truth spiritual, practical, and impressive.

I. OUR EARTHLY OCCUPATION: TO TILL THE VINEYARD OF GOD. The figure sets forth our vocation and responsibility. It represents our life as one of privilege. It is not a wilderness, but a vineyard, which we are called to cultivate. God has done much for us, in appointing for us the circumstances and opportunities of our existence. Our life is one of work. The most favorable situation and the most fruitful soil avail little if the plot be neglected; only faithful and diligent labor on our part can secure that the purposes of the Divine Lord shall be fulfilled. It is for us to “give diligence to make our calling and election sure.” The greater our privileges, the more need that we should be diligent, laborious, and prayerful. Opportunities must be used, and not neglected or abused.

II. GOD‘S RIGHTEOUS EXPECTATION: THAT WE SHALL YIELD HIM FRUIT. What is the crop, the produce, he desires to see? Holiness and obedience, love and praise, as far as he is concerned; and, as far as regards our fellow-men, justice and gentleness, benevolence and helpfulness. He looks for repentance from the sinner, for faith from the hearer of the gospel, for improvement in character and for usefulness in service from the Christian. Why he does this is obvious enough. He has given us the means of knowledge and the opportunities of devotion, and looks for a return. “What more,” he says, “could I have done than I have done?” And this expectation is for our sake as well as for his own. Our fruitfulness is our welfare and our happiness; it brings its own reward.

III. GOD‘S REQUIREMENT AND DEMAND UPON MEN, BY HIS MESSENGERS AND BY HIS SON. Our Lord appeals to us both by the Law and by the gospel. The teaching of his Word brings before us his rightful claims, and shows us how much it is for our highest advantage that we should not be unmindful of them. He summons us by the lessons of his providence, and by the counsels of our Christian friends, to a religious life. Yet there is no appeal so powerful, so persuasive, as that which God makes to us by his own “dear Son.” Christ comes to us with authority; he comes to us with grace. He comes from the Father, and he comes with the deepest interest in our condition, anxious to overcome our rebelliousness, and to lead us to a holy and grateful obedience. The gospel of Jesus Christ is the one great, Divine appeal to the hearts of men. It is the method which infinite Wisdom and Mercy have devised of winning our confidence and love, and securing our ready obedience and loyal service. Those who have rejected other messengers of Heaven may justly be enjoined to receive with reverence the Son of God.

IV. THE PENALTIES OF FRUITLESSNESS AND REBELLION. These are described in this passage in the most affecting terms. Privileges are removed from the unfaithful. The negligent and rebellious are punished and cast out. The advantages which they have spurned are transferred to others.

V. THE REWARD OF FRUITFULNESS AND LOYALTY. 1. Christ is glorified, even though there may be those who reject and contemn him. Christ himself quotes a passage of Scripture, in which this great truth is set forth, though by a change of figure. “The stone which the builders rejected is become the Head of the corner.” The purposes of God are accomplished, and cannot be frustrated by the guilt of man. 2. Other husbandmen are found who will deal more faithfully with the sacred trust. These shall offer the fruits of obedience, which shall be acceptable to the Lord of the vineyard. They shall be confirmed in their occupation, shall be blessed in their work, shall enjoy the Master’s favor, and shall live in the light of their Master’s glory.

Mar 12:13-17

Caesar’s due.

There could not have been a more decisive proof of the duplicity and hypocrisy of the Jewish leaders than that furnished by this incident. It is certain that they were opposed to the Roman sway, that they nursed in their hearts hopes of Jewish independence, that they would have eagerly welcomed such a Messiah as they looked forone who should deliver them from the yoke of foreign bondage. Yet, in their malignity, they were ready to denounce Jesus to the Roman governor should he express an opinion adverse to the paying of tribute, just as they were ready to deliver him up to the fury of the populace should he formally approve and sanction the rights of the empire over the Jewish people. Thus

I. A JUST BUT INSINCERE COMPLIMENT VEILS A MALIGNANT DESIGN. It is an astounding instance of duplicity, this method of approaching the Lord Jesus. These Pharisees and Herodians make admissions which they would never have made except as the means to an evil end. They address the Master with the acknowledgment that he is “true”in this a striking contrast to themselves; that he is impartial, caring not for any one, nor regarding the person of men; that he taught the way of God. This was not empty, complimentary language; it was just. Whether in their hearts they believed it to be so, we cannot say; but Christ’s enemies were often unintentional witnesses, both to his virtues and to his Divine authority and mission. Their only aim was to conciliate him, so that, in an unguarded moment, he might, with natural frankness, commit himself to some judgment which they might use to his harm.

II. A CRAFTY ALTERNATIVE, AN INSIDIOUS SNARE, IS WISELY ELUDED. “IS it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?” A categorical answer either way would have been immediately and effectively used to his injury; he could not, after so answering, both stand well with his countrymen and remain free from the imputation of disloyalty to the then supreme power of Rome. The alternative was fairly evaded, and the snare was escaped, by the method in which Jesus dealt with the question propounded. There was something picturesque and impressive to the popular mind in his asking for the denarius, and pointing to the emperor’s image and superscription. There was manifest reasonableness in yielding to Caesar what was so obviously his own; yet it was pointed out that this might be loyally done without detriment to the higher obligations of religion.

III. A PRINCIPLE OF ACTION IN THE SEVERAL DEPARTMENTS OF HUMAN LIFE IS ONCE FOR ALL ASSERTED.

1. We have here a recognition that civil government is of Divine authority. It does not follow from this that every government deserves approval, or even that under no circumstances is it lawful to resist constituted authority. But our Lord teaches, and his apostles teach, as a general principle, that civil governors are to be obeyed, that “the powers that be are ordained of God.”

2. An implication that there is a province into which civil governors may not intrude, that there are obligations which take precedence even of the duties we owe to the earthly sovereign. There are claims which the Divine Lord himself prefers, and which he regards as supreme. The apostles clearly grasped this principle, and put it into practice when the rulers interfered with their discharge of what they held to be their religious duties. When a conflict occurs between the allegiance due to the civil ruler and that due to the supreme King, our Lord’s words warrant the preference of the Divine to the human law. In times of persecution especially, the principle of our Lord’s words has often guided the wavering and sustained the feeble. “Whether it be right to obey God rather than man, judge ye!” We may say that the modern privilege of religious liberty has grown out of this incident in our Lord’s ministry, these words from our Lord’s lips. And to the same source we may attribute the growing tendency on the part of secular powers to withdraw from the province of religion, and to allow free scope to the action of conscience and full liberty for the profession and for the rites of religion. There is a province into which no earthly authority may intrude, and where the Creator reigns supreme and alone.

Mar 12:18-27

Sadducees confuted.

Of all the subjects which awaken the speculative curiosity and inquiry of men, none approaches, in dignity and importance, the future life. The nobler spirits, in every civilized and cultured community, have either held as an article of faith, or have cherished with fondest hope, the prospect of immortality. Annihilation is a prospect which none but the degraded and sinful can consent to accept without shuddering horror. It has often been observed as very remarkable, though not inexplicable, that the Pentateuch contains no express, explicit statement regarding a future life. It appears that the revelation of immortality was progressive; for expectations regarding a conscious existence of happiness after death are certainly found with growing frequency in the later books of the Old Testament. The psalmists and prophets rejoiced in the hope of a heavenly rest and an imperishable fellowship with the Father of spirits. At the time of our Lord’s ministry there was a division among the religious authorities of the Jewish people upon this all-important subject; the Pharisees holding to the doctrines of immortality and resurrection, and the Sadducees denying and apparently ridiculing both. Amongst the Sadducees were many of the most intellectual of the upper classes of society. They also retained in their own leading families the office of high priest. Both our Lord Christ and his apostle Paul took a very decided stand against the Sadducaic doctrine and party. During the last week of our Lord’s ministry, when the conflict with his enemies was reaching its height, many assaults were made from various quarters against Jesus and his claims and teaching. This passage records the attack of the rationalistic party upon the Divine Master, and his original and conclusive repulse of that attack.

I. THE REASONING OF THE SADDUCEES AGAINST THE TEACHING OF OUR LORD UPON IMMORTALITY AND RESURRECTION.

1. It was indirect reasoning. Instead of attacking the doctrine, they simply attacked a supposed inference from it, viz. the continuance of physical human relations in another life.

2. It was frivolous reasoning. They must have found it hard to state with serious faces a case so absurd. It would have been childish had they supposed the woman to have married twice; the suppesition that she should confront in the resurrection life the rival claims of seven husbands was ridiculous. This is not the temper in which great problems regarding human destiny should be discussed.

3. It was inconclusive; for no one of the alternative solutions of the difficulty proposed would have been incompatible with a future life.

II. THE GENERAL REPLY OF THE LORD JESUS TO THIS REASONING.

1. He refutes the argument, if it can be so called, which they had adduced. Marriage is an earthly institution, and is especially adapted to a mortal race, providing that generation shall succeed generation. Love is indeed imperishable, and shall be perfected in heaven; but marriage shall no longer be necessary when men shall be equal to the angels, and shall sin and die no more. Therefore no reasoning founded upon the continuance of this physical relationship has place with reference to the life beyond the grave.

2. He bases the doctrine of the future life upon the power of God, which they strangely overlooked. It is the reasoning which was repeated by St. Paul, “Why should it be thought a thing impossible with you that God should raise the dead?” The omnipotence which first called human nature into being is surely able to revive the spirit and perpetuate its consciousness and activity. This is an unanswerable argument still against all dogmatic denial of the future life. It does not in itself establish the doctrine, but it is conclusive against those who deny it. It removes the presumption from the opponents to the upholders of immortality.

3. He refers to the Scriptures for grounds for belief in a future life. Those who admitted their authority would find it hard to reconcile such admission with disbelief in the resurrection.

III. THE SPECIAL ARGUMENT BY WHICH THE LORD JESUS ESTABLISHES FAITH IN IMMORTALITY AND A FUTURE LIFE.

1. Jesus refers to an authority which the Sadducees professed emphatically to reverethe Pentateuch. “The Law” was their especial pride, and they may have justified their scepticism by the absence of explicit teaching upon this great doctrine from the books of Moses.

2. Jesus quotes a familiar passage, in which he reads, or from which he deduces, a new and striking and convincing argument. It is upon record that God declared himself to Moses as “the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob.” Now, what did this imply? That God had been their God, but that, they having ceased to exist, he was no longer? Or, that he was the God of their mouldering or dispersed dust, which, upon the theory of annihilation, was all that remained of them? Either those who had been wont to read this passage must have passed it over without reflection, or they must have been satisfied with an interpretation crude and empty. Or else they must have drawn the inference which the great Master now drew: “God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” Once he declares himself his people’s God, he remains such for ever; and they remain his,conscious recipients of his favor, and responsive partakers of his Divine and Fatherly love. He is a covenant God; his promises are never broken, and his declarations never fail. An immortal God involves the immortality of those whom he has created in his image, redeemed by his grace, renewed by his Spirit. If he is what he has revealed himself as being, if his people are what he has declared them to be, then death has no power over them; they are destined to “glory, honor, and immortality.” For “all live in him.”

Mar 12:28-34

The great commandments.

This passage of the Gospel affords common ground, upon which those who lay the greatest stress upon Christian doctrine may meet with conciliation and harmony those who are wont to insist most upon Christian morality. Here is a statement, upon the highest authority, as to what God requires of man, as to what man owes to God and to his fellow-men. “Do this, and thou shalt live!” It is a sublime view of the great purposes of our spiritual being. Beyond this religion cannot go; for this is the end for which our nature was framed, for which revelation was vouchsafed. Yet who can read these requirements of a holy and benevolent Creator and Ruler without feeling that by himself they have not been fulfilled? The man must be besotted by self-conceit, or must have silenced conscience, who claims to have loved God with all his powers, or to have uniformly loved his neighbor as himself. The purer, the more stringent the Law, the deeper the humiliation and contrition of the transgressor. What, then, more fitted to induce sinners to receive the gospel with faith and gratitude than these words of Jesus? What can make so welcome the tidings of Divine forgiveness secured through the redemption wrought by the Savior on the cross? And, further, as we meditate upon this ideal of a beautiful and acceptable moral life, how profoundly are we impressed with a sense of our own weakness! And surely this must lead us to seek and to accept the aid of the Spirit of God, who is the Spirit at once of power and of love! Thus the inculcation of Christian morality naturally suggests the doctrines upon which we build our hopes for time and for eternity. On the other hand, in the presence of these inspiriting words of the Master, how is it possible for the candid and the faithful to rest in that view of the gospel which represents religion as merely securing the forgiveness of sin, and immunity from wrath and punishment? Here is a summons to a spiritual, a self-denying, and a benevolent life.

I. THE QUESTION PROPOSED TO JESUS.

1. In itself it was a worthy, a noble question. Unlike the trifling and ridiculous riddle propounded by the Pharisees, it was an inquiry becoming on the part of the scribe who urged it, and fit for the consideration and judgment of the holy Master himself. It respected commandments, and thus acknowledged the rule of a just God, and the duty of man’s obedience and submission. It concerned moralitythe highest of all human interests. It evinced an evident desire to do what was right, and to give precedence to what should be acknowledged best. There can be no nobler inquiry than thisWhat is the will of God? What is the duty of man? What shall I do?

2. In its spirit and purport, the question was commendable. The questioner observed that Jesus had answered well; that he had solved with marvellous wisdom the difficult question of the Pharisees; that he had dealt skilfully and conclusively with the cavilling of the Sadducees. The limits of civil submission are an interesting branch of study; the future life is of all speculative questions the most engrossing to the thoughtful; but of even wider interest are the foundation, the character, the means, of human goodness. The inquiry as to the first of commandments was put as a testing question, but in no captious spirit; it was the expression of a desire to learnto learn from the highest authority, to learn the most sacred principles of moral life. And not to learn only, but doubtless to practice the lesson acquired.

II. THE ANSWER OF JESUS TO THE SCRIBE. There was no hesitation in the Master’s reply to the question proposed; the challenge was at once taken up. And consummate wisdom was shown in the reference to the Mosaic Law, the very words of which were quoted. Thus the right-minded were conciliated, yet at no expense, but rather by the manifestation, of truth. And the hostile were silenced; for who of the Jewish rabbis could call in question the authority of their own sacred books? When we look into the substance of the response, several remarkable facts become apparent.

1. Love is represented as the sum of the Divine commandments. The Pentateuch contained the injunctions our Lord repeated, but they were included in a vast body of precepts and prohibitions. It could scarcely be said with justice that love was the most prominent of the Mosaic commandments. Christ’s independence, discernment, and legislative authority were shown in his fixing upon the two requirements which occur in different books and in different connections, and in bringing them out into the light of day, and exhibiting them as in his view of surpassing importance, and so promulgating them as the laws of his spiritual kingdom through all time. God himself is love; Christ is the expression and proof of the Divine love; and it is therefore natural and reasonable that love should be the law of the Divine kingdom, the badge of the spiritual family.

2. The Object of supreme love is God himself. The personality of God is assumed, for we cannot love an abstraction, a power; only a living being, who thinks, feels, and purposes. The unity of God is asserted; for although, when Jesus lived on earth, the Jews were no longer subject to the temptation to idolatry, such temptation had beset them when the Law was originally given, and for a long period subsequently. The relationship between God and man is presumed”thy God;” for he is ours and we are his. The claims of God are implied; his character, his treatment of men, his redeeming love in Christ. “We love him, because he first loved us.”

3. The description and degree of love demanded are very fully stated in the text. The expression is a very strong one: “With all thy heart, soul, mind, and strength.” Attempts have been made accurately to discriminate among these. But it seems sufficient to say that the love required in such language is cordial and fervent; cordial, as distinguished from mere profession, and fervent, as distinguished from lukewarmness and indifference. The whole of our nature is expected to combine, so to speak, in this exercise. Not only so, but God is to be regarded as the supreme Object of affection and devotion. He demands the first place in our heart; and those who see his grace in Christ cannot find it hard to offer what he demands.

4. Love to man follows upon love to God. It may, indeed, in order of time, in some measure precede and prepare for it. But in the moral order, in the order of obligation, love to God comes first, and, indeed, furnishes the one sound and safe basis for human love. The designation of the objects of this love deserves notice; they are our “neighbors.” We must interpret this term in the light of our Lord’s answer to an earlier question put to him by a certain lawyer: “Who is my neighbor?” In the parable of the good Samaritan Jesus then laid a broad foundation for human charity. Not our own family, or Church, or nation, but all mankind, are to be regarded with good will, and treated, not only with justice, but with kindness. Practically, those have a claim upon our kindly feeling and good offices whom Providence brings into any contact with us in human society. Remark the measure of this love: “As thyself.” It is, then, right to love self; but in subordination to Divine love, and in accordance with love to neighbors. The test is an effective one, and can always be applied; the Law is parallel with the golden rule, “Do unto others as ye would they should do unto you.” The dependence of this law upon the preceding is obvious. Christianity bases morality upon religion; we love our fellow-men as the children of God, because he loves them and for his sake.

5. Love, to be acceptable, must display itself in practical forms. The love we cherish toward God should lead to worship and to obediencein a word, to a religious life. The love we entertain to our fellow-men will reveal itself in the demeanour, the language, and still more in the conduct. Helpfulness, self-denial, liberality, forbearance, are all fruits of love; which is destructive of discord, malice, and envy, of jealousy, hatred, and persecution. Here is the power to banish the vices, and the remedy to heal the spiritual maladies which afflict mankind!

III. THE SCRIBE‘S APPROVING CONSENT TO CHRIST‘S REPLY.

1. He thus proved his independence of judgment. Others, when answered and silenced by Jesus, retired discomfited, but unconvinced. This rabbi, with a mind candid and open to the truth, receives the Lord’s saying as sufficient and decisive, and renders his own consent and approbation in the words, “Thou hast well said.”

2. He shows his pleasure in the grand utterances of inspiration by repeating the language which Jesus had quotedlanguage evidently both familiar to him and congenial to his character.

3. His boldness and spirituality are apparent in his stating, what Jesus had implied, the superiority of the heart’s affection to all service of the hands.

IV. THE COMMENDATION EXPRESSED BY JESUS.

1. The position of the lawyer was very different from that of others. There were many who were “far” from God’s kingdom. The Pharisees for the most part by their formality, the Sadducees by their scepticism and arrogance, the publicans and sinners by their vices, the multitude by their ignorance,these were far from the kingdom. Amongst those who may justly be so described are always some who are outwardly numbered among the religious, as well as multitudes who are without God, and manifestly have no hope.

2. There were several respects in which this scribe approached the spiritual kingdom of the Savior.

(1) He was acquainted with God’s Word, and was interested in it; he explored and studied it. He appreciated the grandeur and beauty of the Divine Law, and he was bold and earnest in speaking of it. In all this he displayed sympathy with him who came to magnify and to fulfill the Law, and who bade the people search the Scriptures.

(2) He thoroughly agreed with the dictum of the great Master, with regard to the first and most binding and comprehensive ordinances of the inspired Word. Whether or not he was prepared with this answer to the question he proposed, it is evident that the answer commended itself to his judgment and conscience, and that the Divine Respondent was regarded by him with reverential admiration. It is well to find the truth; but it is also well, when others have found it, to recognize and to accept it.

(3) Grand indeed was this scribe’s confession, that love “is much more than whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.” All religionsthe true as well as the falseare corrupted by a tendency in human nature to substitute the sacrificial, the ceremonial, the verbal, for the real, the spiritual. Men think that to comply with directions, instructive and profitable in themselves, but having reference only to symbolical actions, is all important, and they give diligent attention to these, and neglect the weightier matters of the Law. It is presumed that bodily service is sufficient, in forgetfulness of the fact that God is the Searcher of hearts, and that he will be worshipped in spirit and in truth. This is a lesson which still needs to be inculcated, even in days of Christian light and evangelical fervor. Never be it forgotten that character and conduct are of supreme importance, and that the only sufficient, conclusive evidence that a man has received the benefits of redemption, and has felt the renewing power of the Spirit of God, is to be found in the reign of love within his soul, and the manifestation of love in his whole character and life.

V. THE RESERVATION AND QUALIFICATION IN OUR LORD‘S APPROVAL. If there was so much that was admirable in the spirit and the language of this student and expositor of the Law, what was lacking? If he was near the kingdom, what separated him from it, and prevented him from entering in? This question we cannot answer with certainty; we can only surmise. There may have been an inadequate sense of sin; his admiration of Jesus may have come short of true faith in him; and he may have been unready to make a complete surrender of himself to the Lord Jesus. At all events, we have no difficulty in enumerating various hindrances which, as a matter of fact, do keep outside of the kingdom those who are very near its confines. Christ’s dominion is one which cannot be entered except through the door of repentance and of faith. True subjects come in sincere and childlike humility, and receive the welcome promised; by the new birth they enter the new life of the kingdom. The laws of the kingdom are spiritual, and demand spiritual conformity. And the King is enthroned in the heart as well as in society. You must become as little children in order that you may enter the kingdom of God.

APPLICATION.

1. Let faith work by love in Christian natures; and let those who love Christ prove by their spirit and their actions the sincerity of their love.

2. Let those who are near the kingdom, instead of resting in their nearness, regard this as a reason why they should, without delay, enter the gates before which they stand.

Mar 12:34

“Not far from the kingdom.”

That this scribe should have shown so deep an admiration for the Divine Law, so clear a perception of the superiority of the spiritual to the ceremonial, so discerning an appreciation of the Divine Master,all this was to his credit, and awakened the approval and elicited the commendation of our Lord. In the language Jesus addressed to him, a description is given of not a few hearers of the gospel, who present in their character much that is admirable, but who come short of true consecration to Christ, who are “not far from the kingdom of God.” Of this class we may ask

I. HOW NEAR HAVE THEY COME TO THE KINGDOM?

1. They have been, in many cases, brought near by the action of others. A Christian education and Christian influence have moulded their habits and improved a naturally well-inclined disposition.

2. They are well acquainted with the truths of religion, have studied the Scriptures, and have mastered the doctrines as well as the facts they contain.

3. They assent to the revelation contained in the Bible, either unreflectingly or after inquiry and doubt.

4. They admire Christ’s moral character and beneficent life, his pure teaching, and his purposes of compassion towards mankind.

5. They conform to the practices of Christian worship, and even make use of the language of praise and prayer.

6. They obey many of the laws of Christ, either from habit or from a conviction of their justice and expediency.

7. They have had many desires, and may even have formed resolutions, to go further than thisto yield all to the Savior. Of such it may indeed be said, they are “not far from the kingdom of God.”

II. HOW FAR ARE THEY STILL FROM THE KINGDOM? Men may travel a long distance in the right direction, and yet may leave untraversed the last and most important stage of the journey. So is it with many hearers of the gospel.

1. They may yet have to receive the gospel of Christ with their whole nature. The assent of the understanding must be followed by the consent of the will.

2. They may yet have to surrender themselves and their all to Jesus. Men may give much, but withhold more. The test which our Lord proposes is a readiness to offer the heart, and with it all powers and possessions, unto himself. Less is not acceptable to him who claims, and has a right to, all.

3. They may need to overcome much self-righteousness, self-confidence, self-seeking, before their state of mind is such as to enable them to accept the terms of Heaven: “Except ye become as little children,” etc.

III. HOW SHOULD THOSE SO SITUATED NOW ACT?

1. They should reflect how vain is past progress except it lead to future consecration.

2. They should rejoice at the thought that their approach to the kingdom makes it easier for them to enter in. All their knowledge, good feelings, and partial obedience are so many steps upon the road, leaving the fewer to be taken in order to salvation.

3. They should remind themselves how unwise and dangerous and sinful it is to pause where they are. “It is the first step which costs;” and it is the last step which pays! Why should not that last step be taken at once? True repentance, sincere faith, cordial surrender, the new birth,such are the descriptions given of the change yet to pass over those who are not far from the kingdom, in order that they may enter it. Illustrations: The builder rears the arch of a bridge; the keystone has yet to be placed; if that be left undone a storm may rise, the river may swell, his work may be swept away, and all that has been done may count for nothing. The traveler exploring a continent may endure many hardships and perils, may come within a day’s march of the vast lake of which he hopes to be the discoverer: shall he turn back? The manslayer, pursued by the avenger of blood, may be within sight of the city of refuge: to pause is to be slain; to summon up all his strength and to bound forward is to find himself safely within the protecting walls. The captain, the adventurous explorer, after a long voyage over unknown seas, sights the land of which he has dreamed: shall he give orders to put about the ship, and abandon the glorious discovery within its reach, and all the honor, wealth, and fame which now at length await him?

Mar 12:34, Mar 12:37

Various effects of Christ’s ministry.

There was a vigor and directness, an unsparing boldness and fidelity, peculiar to the ministry of our Lord in Jerusalem during the last week of his life. This no doubt precipitated the crisis, enraging his enemies at the same time that it silenced their reasonings. Two remarks are made by the evangelist which show us what was the effect of Christ’s discourses and conversations both upon his foes and upon the multitude.

I. HIS ENEMIES WERE SILENCED. These included most of the members of the more prominent classes, who occupied positions of influence and authority in Jerusalem.

1. Their varied efforts to entrap Christ in his speech are recorded at length. The Pharisees, the Herodians, the Sadducees, and the scribes, all questioned Jesus and reasoned with him, largely with the hope of either weakening his influence or taking some advantage of his replies. There was much craft in the way in which they sought thus to injure him and his work.

2. Their uniform confutation by his wisdom and moral authority. All their efforts, from whatever quarter, and however conducted, proved in vain. None were able to withstand him. He either put them to shame, or convinced them by the wisdom of his answers. The evangelist sums up the impression produced by our Lord’s demeanour and language in these several interviews in the words, “And no man after that durst ask him any question.” Christ’s wisdom is flawless; Christ’s authority is irresistible. Now, as then, it is true that none can dispute with him except to be discomfited. “Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?”

II. THE MULTITUDE WERE ATTRACTED AND DELIGHTED. Whilst the self-confident and the self-righteous were put to shame and confusion, the common people, or rather the multitude, “the people” (as we say), heard him gladly. There were several sufficient reasons for this.

1. He spoke to them as one of themselves. Not from a height of official distance and superiority, but in their own language, with illustrations drawn from their own daily life, and as one who knew them and their ways.

2. His personal interest and sympathy were very marked. He did not break the bruised reed. Often brought into contact with the suffering, he pitied and healed them. Often meeting with sinners contrite and penitent, he pardoned and cheered them.

3. His fearless exposure and denunciation of the wickedness of the religious leaders of the Jews. The selfishness and hypocrisy of Pharisees and lawyers were well known; but such was the mental bondage of the people, that they dared not speak of the iniquities of the rulers save with bated breath. Jesus, however, who regarded not the person of any man, boldly upbraided the iniquitous rulers for their misdeeds. And those who suffered from the extortion and oppression which they endured, rejoiced in the Lord Jesus as in a Champion of the down-trodden, and an Upholder of the right.

4. His direct appeal to the conscience and heart of the people. It is thus, indeed, that masses of men are ever to be moved. Whilst in the preaching of Jesus statement of Divine truth and exhibitions of Divine love formed the substance of his addresses, he so spoke as to reach the moral nature of his hearers. No raving, no exaggeration, no vulgarity; but simplicity, vigor, earnestness, moral authority, were manifest in all his utterances.

5. He brought the fatherly grace of God home to the erring and helpless. This was what the religious leaders of the time did not. The hearts of men responded to the revelation of the heart of God. How could the people do otherwise than hear him gladly, when he said, “Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest”?

Mar 12:35-40

The scribes.

The profession of scribes, which had existed among the Jews ever since the Captivity, was in itself an honorable and useful profession. And there were members of this learned body who came into contact with the Lord Jesus who showed a candid disposition, a love of the truth, and who evinced respect and admiration for the great Rabbi. Yet some of the most bitter and virulent of our Lord’s enemies were of this class. Their superiority to the people was a snare as well as an advantage. Many of them hid beneath the cloak of learning an evil heart, selfishness, arrogance, and unspirituality. In the discourse of Jesus here recorded, we find a protest against the general teaching, and a protest against the too common character, of these adversaries of his ministry and doctrine.

I. CHRIST‘S CORRECTION OF THE SCRIBES‘ TEACHING REGARDING THE MESSIAH.

1. What was this teaching? It was the simple statement, that the Messiah should be a descendant of David. This was Scriptural truth, and the Gospels exhibit its application to Jesus. But it was only part of the truth.

2. In what respects did Jesus add to this conception of the Messiah? He quoted from the Scriptures, and he attributed their declarations to the inspiration of the Holy! Spirit. And thus he transmuted the bald doctrine of the scribes into a doctrine full of spiritual significance and dignity. These points especially are brought out:

(1) Preeminence is assigned to the Messiah over even his illustrious ancestor, David.

(2) The Messiah is represented as the Assessor of the Most High himself.

(3) The Messiah is depicted as the Conqueror of his foes. In all these respects the truly Scriptural representation of the Christ is an immense advance upon the customary teaching of the Jewish scribes. Thus Christ teaches concerning himself.

II. CHRIST‘S DENUNCIATION OF THE CHARACTER AND CONDUCT OF THE SCRIBES.

1. Their loud professions of sanctity, and their ostentatious devotions, are censured. Long prayers may sometimes be the outcome of deep feeling and many needs; they may, as in the case of these scribes, be a cloak for sin. Long robes, like long prayers, may be a profession with which nothing spiritual corresponds. Hypocrisy was a crying evil of the times. There is no vice that is more hateful to God; and it may be questioned whether it often imposes upon men.

2. Their love of pre-eminence is blamed. Both in “Church and State” they loved to be supreme, and in all social relations they sought the honor which cometh from man. In the synagogues, in the market, places, and at festive gatherings the scribes would fain be first.

3. Their cruel rapacity is held up to obloquy. The bereaved and the defenceless were their victims. On some pretext or other they gained possession or management of the property of widows, and were not satisfied until they appropriated the whole. There are those in our own days, and in Christian lands, who grow rich by similar practices, and who incur by such infamous cruelty “the wrath of the Lamb.”

4. Christ predicts the condemnation of such sinners, and at the same time puts the people on their guard against them. His threat of condemnation was authoritative; and his warning was one which was needed and timely. Against the wrongs and cruelties, the assumptions and the errors of such pretenders, the Good Shepherd would fain protect his feeble and defenceless sheep.

Mar 12:41-44

The widow’s mite.

The presence of this poor widow, among unspiritual and ostentatious worshippers and offerers, is as a sunbeam amidst the gloom, a rose in the wilderness. It is a touching picture, this of the lonely woman, who had lost her husband, and whose heart was sad, whose means were scanty, and whose life was obscure and cheerless. But she had found strength and consolation in waiting upon God. And the temple, the appointed place for worship, with its services, so helpful to devotion, and associated with holy gatherings, and with opportunities for Divine communion, was dear to her heart. She could not be absent when the sacred services were proceeding, nor could she withhold her little gift in passing the treasury, as she left the scene of worship and of fellowship. And thus she was noticed by the Master, and her memory was immortalized, and her action has become a model and an inspiration to Christ’s people through all time. We may learn from this incident,

I. WHAT IN GIFTS AND ALMS IS, IN GOD‘S SIGHT, INCONSIDERABLE. The view taken by men is different. But we are, as Christians, bound by the judgment of our Lord, who here teaches us that:

1. The actual amount is in itself of little moment. With reference to the material ends to be obtained by money, this is of course not the case. When a spacious, durable, and handsome church is to be built, when an expensive missionary expedition to some distant land is to be undertaken, there is need of large pecuniary contributions; and it is only where there is large wealth that such enterprises are possible. But as far as the spiritual value and acceptableness of alms and benefactions are concerned, the mere pecuniary amount is unimportant. The mite of the widow is as much approved by God as the gold of the wealthy.

2. The comparative amount which is contributed is in this regard unimportant. The offering which is less than that presented by a neighbor is not, therefore, necessarily bad; not is the offering which exceeds that of a neighbor, therefore, necessarily good. It is too common among givers to askWhat is customary? What is the amount contributed by others? The relative sum is disregarded by the Observer of all donations and the Searcher of all hearts. If one gives largely from his superfluity, he may nevertheless give less than his neighbor, who out of his poverty gives what seems a trifling sum.

II. WHAT IN GIFTS AND ALMS IS VALUABLE IN GOD‘S SIGHT.

1. The relation they bear to the giver’s means. This is brought out very effectively in this narrative. The poor widow “of her want” gave “all that she had,” even “all her living,” i.e. perhaps what she had in hand for that day’s sustenance. It has often been remarked that God has regard, not merely to what a man gives, but to what he keeps. The gifts of the opulent are acceptable, but “dearer to God are the gifts of the poor.”

2. The purpose and intent for which they are given. Money, which is bestowed merely with a view to secure the good opinion of men, to attain a certain position socially or in the religious community, is not regarded by the Omniscient as given to his cause. If the motive be the relief of human suffering, the enlightenment of human ignorance, the diffusion of religious knowledge and privileges, then doubtless gifts are acceptable, even though there may be some deficiency in the worldly wisdom according to which the means are directed to the ends in view.

3. The spirit in which they are given. An unostentatious act of charity, an ungrudging devotion of property, a disposition to forego some luxury, some personal comfort or pleasure, in order to do good, a pious reference of the act of giving to him who gives alike the means and the inclination for liberality,these are qualities which render beneficence acceptable to the Lord and Judge of all. “The Lord loveth a cheerful giver. He who thus bestows his charity shall indeed receive again from him who acknowledges all true service. A gift is accepted according to what a man hath, and not according to what he hath not.

HOMILIES BY A.F. MUIR

Mar 12:1-12

The parable of the vineyard.

The imagery adopted would at once address itself to the understanding of the hearers. Palestine pre-eminently a land of the grape. The prophetic writings are full of symbols and figures from the vine. This was spoken in continuation of his dispute with the Sanhedrim, and in the presence of all the people in the temple. The historical allusions to the prophets and the personal one to himself must have been only too clear. It was a detailed and crescent indictment of the most solemn and awful character.

I. GOD‘S LOVING PROVISION FOR THE SPIRITUAL INTERESTS OF HIS PEOPLE INVOLVED CORRESPONDING OBLIGATION.

II. INSTEAD OF SERVING GOD, THE RELIGIOUS LEADERS OF ISRAEL SOUGHT THEIR OWN ADVANTAGE.

III. SELFISHNESS AND UNBELIEF LED TO THE REJECTION OF THE PROPHETS, AND EVEN OF THE SON OF GOD HIMSELF.

IV. SUCH CONDUCT ENTAILS A JUDGMENT, WHICH, ALTHOUGH DELAYED, IS NEVERTHELESS SURE AND TERRIBLE.

V. THE LOVING PURPOSE OF GOD, ALTHOUGH HINDERED BY SUCH MEANS, WILL HE ULTIMATELY AND GLORIOUSLY FULFILLED.M.

Mar 12:13-17

The politics of Christianity.

Christ, in his visits to the temple, met with the various representatives of religious, ecclesiastical, and political opinion in Palestine. He is the center and touchstone of all. Their very attacks and dishonest questions were so many confessions of his moral and intellectual supremacy. To Christ do the different schools of thought and life amongst men still come, and the problems they raise can never be satisfactorily settled until he solves them.

I. A TRAP LAID FOR CHRIST.

1. By whom? Ultimately and originally by the Pharisees, the leaders of ultra-Judaism and advocates of a restored theocracy and national independence. But that this view, having its root at first in profound spirituality of aim and motive, had been subsidized by baser considerations, is only too evident. Their hatred for Christ on the present occasion led them to throw away all scruples they might have felt, and to assume a disingenuous position of inquiry. But they could do this the more effectively in concert with others, with whom, although somewhat disagreeing on the solution to be accepted of the theory of national independence, they yet agreed upon the general question itself. The Herodians were a recent party, attached to the fortunes and politics of the Herods, and accepting their rule as a satisfactory compromise of the difficulty arising from the theocratic views of the Jews and the actual supremacy of the Roman empire. They are supposed to have originated with the Pharisees, with whom they still retained general relations, and with whom they for the most part co-operated. Menahem the Essene, who was a Pharisee, being captivated, it is said, by the predicted ascendency of the house of Herod, attached himself to Herod the Great, and brought over many of his co-religionists. They believed that in the monarchy of Herod the national aspirations of the Jews were reasonably met, and at the same time the demands of Rome, whose creature he was. They were as a party, as might be expected, less scrupulous than the original Pharisees. The latter imagined, as many like them have done since, that by suborning others to do a dishonorable action they avoided the disgrace of it themselves.

2. In what did the snare consist? In an attempt to get Christ to commit himself to the tenets of one or other of the political parties of the day. This was not with the view of strengthening the influence of either, but simply to compromise him, according to his answer, either with the Roman government on the one hand, or with the national party of Judaism on the other.

3. How was it halted? With flattery: yet flattery which unwillingly witnessed to the “openness” and uprightness of Christ’s character, his Divine impartiality, his fearless truthfulness.

II. THE TRAP EVADED. The simplicity of Christ, upon which they had calculated for the success of their scheme, was the very cause of its failure. “Wise as serpents, but harmless as doves,” is a principle which has its root in the nature of the Divine life. The inquiry is answered:

1. By an appeal to matter of fact. “Show me a penny,” etc. The existence of such a coin (the denarius, which was the standard silver coin of the Romans, value about eightpence or ninepence), with its “image and superscription,” proved beyond question the subject condition of Palestine. The actual situation being, therefore, what it was, and, so far as they could do anything, irreversible, it was not right for them to ignore it. If the privileges attending it were freely made use of, the duties involved should also be discharged.

2. By enunciating a dealer and wider principle than they recognized. As things were, the practice of their own religion was freely permitted to the Jews, toleration being a principle of imperial policy. There was, therefore, no really spiritual difficulty involved. The political nostrums of Pharisee and Herodian alike were, therefore, party cries and nothing more. They were thus convicted of unreality, of hypocrisy, or acting a part. It was not religion they cared for, but their own personal or party ends. Yet at the same time, for such as then or at any future time might have their religious scruples affected by political conditions, Christ laid down a general principle of action. When human government is not opposed to Divine, submission may be conscientiously made to both. Only where they differ is there any room for doubt; but even such a doubt will be satisfactorily dealt with by beginning from the Divine side of obligation. This principle, which stands good for all times, is essentially a spiritual one. Under all circumstances, therefore, the duty of the Christian, or conscientious religionist, is shown to be fundamentally a moral one. Actually existent authority imposes obligations which have to be recognized in the spirit of submission and piety, when not conflicting with Divine prerogatives. Christianity has only indirectly a bearing on politics; its direct and immediate concern is with morals.M.

Mar 12:15

“Bring me a penny.”

I. CHRIST WILL HAVE ACCOUNT OF THE SMALLEST THINGS. The denarius was a small coin in common use. The spirit of Christ, sun-like, discovers even the “motes.” In all things there is duty. Christ’s attitude to the Law not only general but particular. “Not one jot or tittle” was to pass away unfulfilled because of the influence of Christianity. “Ye are my disciples, if ye do whatsoever I have commanded you.” We shall have to give account of smallest things at lastidle words, false shame, “the cup of cold water,” etc. The parable of the pounds has for its moral, “He that is faithful in that which is least,” etc. There is no slurring over of little things because of a general disposition and amiable intention.

II. SMALL THINGS OFTEN REPRESENT GREAT PRINCIPLES, AND BECOME THE VEHICLES OF GREAT DUTIES. Coins are often of value, apart from their intrinsic worth, in witnessing to conquests, political influences, the progress of civilization, etc.; and numismatists have made many important contributions to history through their testimony. In this case the witness was even more pregnant and precious. It proved what actually existed, and represented the claim of earthly powers. The duty to God was shown thereby to be something quite distinct, and the general relation of the human and the Divine in human obligations was thereby permanently settled and set forth. It is equally so in regard to other things. “A straw will show which way the wind blows, or the water flows.” Illustrated in such instances as the Massacre of St. Bartholomew; watchwords and flag of truce in time of war; the potty dealings of common life; the “minor moralities” of the Christian, etc.

III. WE ARE ENCOURAGED AND COMMANDED TO BRING SMALL THINGS TO CHRIST Do not say he has no interest in them. See how he looks at that widow with her two mites. Hear how he calls the little children. We need a more thorough Christianity, and if we follow this rule of bringing our daily concerns, our griefs, our moral difficulties, our sins, to the throne of grace, we shall become “Israelites indeed, in whom is no guile.” He will interpret the minutest uncertainty or perplexity, and show us the great in the little. Erasmus Darwin wrote: “I have just heard that there are muzzles or gags made at Birmingham for the slaves in our islands. If this be true, and such an instrument could be exhibited by a speaker in the House of Commons, it might have a great effect. Could not one of their long whips or wire-tails be also procured and exhibited? But an instrument of torture of our own manufacture would have a greater effect, I dare say”.M.

Mar 12:18-27

The puzzle of the Sadducees.

I. THE CASE STATED. An extreme one; and probably a locus classicus in the works of the rabbins. It was supposed to be a reductio ad absurdum of all theories of resurrection or immortality. “In the resurrection” is used apparently in a pregnant sense, as including the judgment, when all questions would be decided, and the conditions of the future state settled. The case as stated referred only to legal and external conditions, questions of sentiment or spiritual attachment being ignored. The only case in Scripture of Christ coming into direct collision with the Sadducees. That the questioners were not maliciously disposed in presenting these difficulties may be inferred from the manner in which they are answered: not indignantly, or with an epithet expressing moral condemnation; but in a straightforward, matter-of-fact way, although censure is also expresseda kind of censure peculiarly distasteful to such men, who generally pretend to grit originality and critical acumen. They are accused of ignorance and spiritual inexperience.

II. How CHRIST DISPOSED OF IT.

1. By reference to the possibilities of Divine power. “In the resurrection state there will not be a repetition, pure and simple, of present conditions; there will be advance of inward and outward development. Love will continue; but in the case of the holy it will be sublimed. ‘The power of God’ is adequate, not only to the re-formative, but also to the transformative changes that may be requisite; and his wisdom will see to it that they be in harmony with the perfectibility of individual personality and the general procession of the ages. Even on earth there are loftier loves than those that are merely marital” (Morison). “They neither marry, nor are given in marriage.” “His words teach absolutely the absence from the resurrection life of the definite relations on which marriage rests in this, and they suggest an answer to the yearning questions which rise up in our minds as we ponder the things behind the veil The old relations may subsist under new conditions. Things that are incompatible here may there be found to coexist. The saintly wife of two saintly husbands may love both with an angelic, and therefore a pure and unimpaired, affection. The contrast between our Lord’s teaching and the sensual paradise of Mahomet, or Swedenberg’s dream of the marriage state perpetuated under its earthly conditions, is so obvious as hardly to call for notice” (Plumptre). “The present life is but a partial revelation of the Divine power. All the relations of earthly families do not continue in heaven” (Godwin).”

2. By interpretation of Scripture. Not the letter of Scripture is appealed to, but the underlying truth involved in the statement of Scripture, “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.“ The copula connecting the first clause of the quotation is not in the original, so that no argument can be founded upon it. Professor Plumptre’s explanation”The principle implied in the reasoning is, that the union of the Divine Name with that of a man, as in “I am the God of Abraham,’ involved a relation existing, not in the past only, but when the words were uttered. They meant something more than “I am the God whom Abraham worshipped in the past”is, therefore, manifestly inadequate. That of Dr. Morison is more explicit and profound: “It amounted to this: If there was at all a patriarchal dispensation, embracing a Messianic, or redemptive scheme, and thus involving a Divinely commissioned Messiah or Redeemer, who was to be in due time incarnated, then there must be a life to come. But there was such a dispensation, if it be the case that God became ‘ the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,’ in any distinctive sense whatever. And then, moreover, as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob took personal advantage of the Messianic covenant into which God entered with them, they ‘live’ They have ‘life,’ ‘everlasting life,’ in the intense acceptation of the term” (in loc.). Cf. Heb 11:13, Heb 11:14, Heb 11:16. A more direct proof might have been obtained in other portions of the Old Testament, but the skill of this argument lay in the reference to a book received by the Sadducees, and in the unexpected interpretation of familiar words. Thus their liberalism and narrowness were rebuked, and the popular longing of the Jews confirmed. The line of evidence led by Christ not only meets the objection to resurrection, but includes the proof of that of which resurrection is only a portion, viz. immortality. If such depth of meaning lay in the words of an old pre-Christian revelation, what may not the gospel itself unfold, when spiritually interpretated in the light of new conditions and experiences

Mar 12:24

Sorces of heresy.

I. PRINCIPAL CAUSES OF RELIGIOUS ERROR.

1. Ignorance of Holy Scripture.

(1) Unaided human nature is prone to error. Bather might it be said that of itself human nature cannot possibly know the truth. We have but to remember the idola of which philosophy warns us, to perceive how much there is in the circumstances and very constitution of the human mind to interfere with the attainment of intellectual truth. Difficulties of this nature, however, may be practically overcome by diligence, candour, and careful study; and the phenomena of the senses will yield up the secret of their working to the educated thinker. But there are things beyond sense concerning which the methods of intellectual research can give us no information. The agnosticism of science concerning these things is therefore, as a whole, to be accepted as real. Were it not that there are moral as well as purely intellectual and constitutional causes for this ignorance, no fault need be found with it. But any view of mental error which omitted consideration of the fact of human depravity could not be considered adequate. The natural mind “loves darkness rather than light.”

(2) Scripture is intended to correct human error. “The entrance of thy words giveth light” (Psa 119:130). They reveal the existence, works, character, and purpose of God. By so doing they solve the mysteries attaching to human life and duty. They are the Word of God, anticipating and transcending the findings of the world’s experience. This is done, not only by communicating what is above sensible perception, but by affording a discipline to the spiritual nature. “For the Word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Heb 4:12). “Every Scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness: that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work” (2 Timothy in. 16). “Ye search the Scriptures, because ye think that in them ye have eternal life; and these are they which bear witness of me” (Joh 5:39).

2. Lack of spiritual experience. “Nor the power of God.” This ignorance may consist partly in ignorance of the facts of the Divine history of mankind as recorded in Scripture; but it is chiefly due to absence of personal, experimental consciousness of God in the spiritual nature. It is the “darkness of the heart” which exaggerates and intensifies the effects of general ignorance. “The power of God” works its miracles in the inward as well as the outward life; in conversion, sanctification, communion, and providential grace.

II. IN WHOM THESE MAY EXIST. The Sadducees were, according to the standards of their day, educated men. With the letter of the books of Moses they were familiar (Mar 12:26); and they were most careful to preserve them from addition or intermixture.

1. Highly educated men may err in Divine things. “Thou didst hide these things from the wise and understanding, and didst reveal them unto babes” (Mat 11:25). Secular culture has not furnished an atom of the transcendental knowledge upon which religion is based; the Bible is not its product, nor can it be interpreted by it. Yet is not literature, art, or science to be discarded as a secondary aid to the interpretation of Scripture. If God does not require our knowledge, neither does he, as it has been finely said, require our ignorance.

2. There are many who know the letter of God‘s Word without knowing its spirit. Religious training may bestow an acquaintance with Scriptural history and doctrine and the chief outlines of moral duty, but it cannot ensure the inward knowledge of the heart. The interpretation of Scripture is only possible to those who are spiritually enlightened. Knowing the Bible externally may actually prove a hindrance to an inward knowledge of it, if it be made too much of, or imagined sufficient in itself. Superficial acquaintance with Biblical literature, doctrine, etc., “puffeth up;” and it requires the sternest and most frequent assaults ere its true character is exposed to itself.

III. HOW THEY ARE TO BE REMOVED.

1. The teaching of Christ; awakening a sense of inward need and repentance, and revealing the correspondence of the Word of God to the expanding and maturing spiritual consciousness.

2. The gift of the Holy Spirit; which takes of the things of God and reveals them to us. “Things which eye saw not, and ear heard not, and which entered not into the heart of man, whatsoever things God prepared for them that love him. But unto us God revealed them through the Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God” (1Co 2:9). Not least of the enlightening influence of the Holy Ghost is due to the purification of the heart.M.

Mar 12:28-34

The Law akin to the gospel, but inferior to it.

I. True RELIGIOUS INQUIRY IS ENCOURAGED BY CANDOUR AND SPIRITUAL INSIGHT ON THE PART OF RELIGIOUS TEACHERS. Matthew tells us that the Pharisees came together top the same place.” when they saw the disscomfiture of the Sadducees; and “then one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying.” Mark introduces him as one of the scribes. In the one Gospel the motive and encouragement are represented as experienced by the Pharisaic party in general; in the other they are represented as individually felt and acted upon. There were, therefore, elements of earnestness and spirituality amongst the Pharisees, and these were called forth by our Saviours teaching. They were now in a more favorable attitude for receiving the truth than they had ever been before. As to the idea expressed by “tempting,” it need not be understood in a sinister sense, but generally as proving, testing, etc. Our Lord did not crush the spirit of inquiry, but courted it. They felt that there was more in him than they could explain, and that his knowledge of Scripture was spiritual and profound, and therefore they wished to discover what he could possibly have to tell them that was not already taught by Moses or his prophetic exponents. He had all but converted his enemies and critics into his disciples. He had infected them with his own spirit of religious earnestness. Of this mood the “lawyer” was the mouthpiece. He pushes inquiry to its highest point, and desires to know the chief duties of religion.

II. THE BEST MODE OF ANSWERING SUCH INQUIRY IS THAT WHICH PRESENTS THE SPIRIT AND SUBSTANCE OF DUTY, OR TRUE RELIGION IN ITS UNITY AND UNIVERSALITY. “Deu 6:4. This is not given as a part of the Law of Moses, but as the principle of all service. Le Deu 19:18 contains a similar principle for all social duties” (Godwin). Passing over all matters of mere ceremonial, and questions of less or more, he lays hold of the spirit of the Law and presents it to his inquirer. It is out of the very heart of the hook of ceremonies (Leviticus) that the duty to neighbors is extracted. He declares “the three unities of religion:

(1) the one God;

(2) the one faith;

(3) the one commandment” (Lunge);

and compels the agreement and admiration of his questioner. “Note also the real reverence shown in the form of address, ‘Master,’ i.e. ‘Teacher, Rabbi.’ He recognized the speaker as one of his own order” (Plumptre). All religion is summed up by him in a “great commandment,” viz. the love of God, and that is shown in its earthward aspect to involve loving our neighbor as ourselves. That true religion is not ceremonial but spiritual is thus demonstrated; and in quoting the highest utterances of the prophets, the scribe but endorses and restates the same doctrine. Teacher and inquirer are therefore theoretically one. But more is needed; and towards the attainment of this the stimulus is given, “Thou art not far from the kingdom of God.“ This meant that

III. SUCH INQUIRY CAN ONLY BE SATISFIED AND CROWNED BY ACTING UPON ITS HIGHEST SPIRITUAL CONVICTIONS. “The words are significant as showing the unity of our Lord’s teaching. Now, as when he spoke the sermon on the mount, the righteousness which fulfils the Law is the condition of the entrance into the kingdom of God (Mat 5:19, Mat 5:20). Even the recognition of that righteousness as consisting in the fulfillment of the two commandments that were exceeding broad, brought a man as to the very threshold of the kingdom. It is instructive to compare our Lord’s different method of dealing, in Luk 10:25-37, with one who had the same theoretical knowledge, but who obviously, consciously or unconsciously, minimized the force of the commandments by his narrowing definitions” (Plumptre). “The kingdom of heaven is, for the moment, pictorially represented as localized, like the ordinary kingdoms of the world. The scribe, walking in the way of conscientious inquiry, and thus making religious pilgrimage, had nearly reached its borderland. He was bordering on the great reality of true religion, subjection of spirit to the sovereign will of God” (Morison). This state can only be attained to by conversion, the identification of the sinner through faith with the righteousness of the Savior, and the indwelling of the Spirit of God. It is thus scientific conviction becomes moral, and we are able to carry into effect what we know to be true and right.M.

Mar 12:34

“Not far from the kingdom of God “

I. THE HIGHEST INTERPRETATION OF HUMAN DUTY APPROACHES THE GOSPEL, BUT FALLS SHORT OF IT.

II. THE CONDITIONS OF ENTRANCE INTO CHRIST‘S KINGDOM ARE MORAL, AND NOT MERELY INTELLECTUAL. Faith; obedience; love. The heart, or central being.

III. NO MAN OUGHT TO BE SATISFIED WITH MERELY BEING “NOT FAR” FROM THE KINGDOM.

1. To stop there is to stultify our highest spiritual instincts and tendencies.

2. To stop there is to fail of salvation.

3. To stop there is to aggravate our misery and sin.M.

Mar 12:35-37

Great David’s greater Son,

I. UNSPIRITUAL INTERPRETERS OF SCRIPTURE ARE INVOLVED IN INCONSISTENCY AND SELF–CONTRADICTION,

1. In the present instance they proved to be so with respect to the most important truths. It is only the spiritual mind that can harmonize the apparent discrepancies of revelation (1Co 2:14; cf. Heb 5:12, seq.).

2. This results in their cure loss and injury (1Pe 3:16). They failed to recognize the Messiah when he did come, because of their false conceptions of what he was.

II. THE GLORY OF THE MESSIAH IS SEEK FROM PROPHETIC SCRIPTURE TO BE MORE THAN ROYALTO BE, IN FACT, DIVINE. The hundred and tenth psalm is rightly called “a psalm of David.” Merely to apply it to David is to destroy its Messianic character. “The psalm is not only quoted by our Lord as Messianic in the passages already referred to (viz. this and Mat 22:1-46 : 41-46); it is more frequently cited by the New Testament writers than any other single portion of the ancient Scriptures. (Comp., besides these passages in the Gospels, Act 2:34, Act 2:35; 1Co 15:25; Heb 1:13; Heb 5:6; Heb 7:17, Heb 7:21; Heb 10:13.) In later Jewish writings, in the Talmud and the rabbis, nearly every verse of the psalm is quoted as referring to the Messiah” (Perowne). The majority of ancient Jewish intereters apply the psalm to the Messiah. If, then, it is David’s own composition, and is Messianic, the language used with respect to the Royal One who is to come is only to be explained as involving divinity: “Jehovah said to my Lord.”

III. IN APPLYING THE PSALM TO HIMSELF, CHRIST SUGGESTED THE TRUE SOLUTION OF THE APPARENT CONTRADICTION. The psalm is deliberately and by implication adopted by Christ. He testifies to the Divine inspiration of its author. His own person and work are the key to its meaning. As he was Son of David on the human side, so was he David’s Lord by virtue of his Divine Sonship.M.

Mar 12:37

“The common people heard him gladly.”

I. THE PERSONS THUS AFFECTED The reference of the words common people misunderstood Literally the expression is, “the great multitude” It was in temple, and must have comprehended all classes, especially the middle and upper; the very lowest being but sparsely represented. It was also nationally homogeneousJewish.

II. REASONS FOR THEIR BEING SO. Not on account of eloquence, or So-called popularity” of address. That the highest qualities were exhibited “goes without saying.” The full splendour and majesty of Messianic teaching were exhibited. The Man himself was more, and felt to be more, than his words. Two circumstances lent a passing interest to his teaching: he exposed and defeated the religious pretenders of the day, Pharisees, Sadducees, lawyers, whose true character the people’s instinct felt had been revealed; and he appealed to the national religious spirit, in setting forth the true doctrine of the Messiah.

III. THE MORAL VALUE OF THIS RECEPTION OF CHRIST.

1. It showed that the deepest instincts of humanity are on the side of religion and Divine truth.

2. But it did not involve discipleship. Admiration, intellectual assent, even some wonder at what was truly Divine; but no moral conviction. There are many to whom the gospel is a thing gladly heard, but soon dismissed from the thoughts. It is in obedience and faith that the “glad tidings” are practically and permanently experienced by the human heart.M.

Mar 12:41-44

The widow’s two mites.

The treasury, “in front of the sanctuary,” consisted of thirteen brazen chests, called “trumpets” from their peculiar, shape, “swelling out beneath, and tapering upward into a narrow mouth or opening, into which the contributions were put.” The contributions given were towards the sacrifice fund, and they were voluntary. This incident has a deep, permanent interest for all Christians.

I. CHRIST‘S OBSERVATION OF RELIGIOUS GIVING. He “sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury.” This has been felt to be typical of his eternal attitude: he still sits “over against the treasury” of his Church.

1. It was deliberate. He did it as one who had purposed to do it; and he was not in any hurry. The position was chosen, and was well suited to carry out his intention.

2. It was careful and discriminating. The different classes of people were notedrich and poor, ostentatious and retiring, mean and generous. He beheld how the people cast in.

3. It was comprehensive. No individual seems to have escaped his attention. Even the poor widow is observed.

4. It was his last act ere quitting the temple for ever.

II. HIS KNOWLEDGE OF ITS MOTIVES AND CIRCUMSTANCES.

1. How penetrating! The outward actions and bearing of the donors would doubtless reveal to his eye, who “knew what was in man,” their real characters. Now he looks directly upon our secret thoughts and feelings, and is acquainted with all the conditions of mind and heart through which we pass. Be knows the history of the gift, as well as its actual bestowal.

2. How complete! The domestic circumstances of the widow were well known to him. No tax-surveyor could have reckoned the income of the people more accurately.

3. How minute! The exact nature and number of the widow’s coins are noted.

III. His judgment AS TO ITS WORTH. His attitude now, as on the day when “he looked round about upon all things,” was authoritative and judicial He sat as one who had a right to be there. It is from a supreme elevation of moral sentiment that he looks, for already clearly visible to his spirit is his own great giftof himself.

1. Given from a spiritual point of view. Not the objective amount, but the motives and feelings of the givers. The spirit of sacrifice, the religious enthusiasm of each, is measured and declared.

2. The standard indicated is not how much is given, but from how much it is given. They all cast in “of their abundance.” What they gave was, therefore, a mere superfluity. Their comforts were not decreased, their luxuries still abounded. The needthe absolute povertyof the widow rendered her gift a sacrifice, and a heroic act of faith. It was prophetic of the Divine charities that were to be awakened in the breasts of regenerate men, when his own great sacrifice should have borne its fruit. The Macedonian Churches (and many a one since) gave not only to their power, but beyond it, their deep poverty abounding to the fiches of their liberality (2Co 8:1, 2Co 8:2). “Now, many would have been ready to censure this poor widow, and to think she did ill. Why should she give to others when she had little enough for herself? It is so rare a thing to find any that would not blame this widow, that we cannot expect to find any that will imitate her! And yet our Savior commends her, and therefore we are sure that she did very well and wisely” (Matthew Henry).M.

HOMILIES BY A. ROWLAND

Mar 12:41

Jesus lingering in the temple.

This is one of the best-known incidents in the life of our Lord. It is strange that it should be so. If we consider the greatness of his work, we should hardly expect that room would be found in a brief record of it for so trivial an event. It was an every-day occurrence for the worshippers who entered the temple to cast their offerings into the treasury, and not a few widows would be found among them. Yet an evangelist, who was inspired of God to select or reject any of the multitudinous facts of Christ’s ministry, did not leave untold the story of the widow’s mite; and it is repeated with equal emphasis by Luke. Evidently God judges not as man does. We think much of a philanthropic scheme which loudly asserts itself; but he probably estimates more highly the scheme of some obscure Christian worker, who gathers together the poor and wretched, telling them of a nobler, purer life, and lifting them up towards the light of God’s love. In trivial incidents great principles are found, and we should dig in them as for hid treasure. Our Lord Jesus Christ is naturally the Centre of this scene, and we will see what we may of his characteristics as exhibited in it.

I. THE GENTLENESS OF CHRIST. For the last time our Lord had appeared in the temple as a public Teacher. Before crowds of people he had once more strongly denounced the hypocrisy of the scribes and Pharisees. They were convicted by their own consciences, and incapable of reply, so “they answered not a word;” but, in their desperation and malignity, they resolved the more speedily to put him to death. Be knew it perfectly welt. Yet, after speaking as the righteous Rebuker of sin, he gladly turns aside to discover and commend a hidden act of goodness. Indeed, he seemed eager to see something which would redeem his Father’s house from the wickedness which dishonored it. Hence “he sat over against the treasury,” and watched tilt he saw one worshipper whose sacrifice he could rejoice overthat of a poor widow, who cast in all the living that she had. That act of hers came to him like a streak of sunshine through the clouds. How tenderly and patiently does he still watch for any glimmer of faith and love in human hearts!

II. THE SERENITY OF CHRIST. His calmness was like the blue of the heavens, unruffled and unchanged by storms that stir the lower atmosphere. An ordinary man, after uttering a rebuke which enraged his foes to madness, would put himself out of reach. He would not linger in their stronghold, which was full of perils to him. But in patience Jesus Christ possessed his soul. He knew his hour had not yet come. He would not hasten away. It might be that some of his hearers would repent, and come to him, confessing and forsaking their sins. So, while many passed him whose beetling brows were black with hatred, he in the court of the women quietly sat and waited. Such serenity was habitual with him. When there was haste and agony and terror in Bethany, Jesus abode throe days in the same place where he was. When the warning came, “Depart hence, for Herod will kill thee,” he calmly continued his works of mercy. When the armed band followed him into Gethsemane, he confronted them with a calmness that paralyzed them. When he conquered death and rose from the grave, there was no sign of hastethe linen clothes were laid orderly, and the napkin was folded in a place by itself. Too often our hearts are perturbed. We are fussy, anxious, fretful; but. if we will but receive it, this is his legacy: “Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.”

III. THE CONDESCENSION OF CHRIST. Our Lord was full of great thoughts, not only respecting this world, but that other world from which he came, with its vivid realities and awful mysteries. He looked on to the future of the work he had begun, and which in a few days would be consummated on the crossa work which would, not only stir Jerusalem, but shake the Roman empire, and go onward through distant ages with growing force, till all nations would call him blessed. Yet here he was, watching a few Jewish worshippers go into their temple; and he notices each one. He sees even this poor widow, whom others brush past with haste or contempt. He knows her struggle and sacrifice and single-heartedness, as she brings that tiny offering, with a blush of shame that it is so little, and secretly lets it fall into the treasury of her God. His condescension is still displayed to the meanest and the humblest worshippers, and broken words, paltry gifts, and feeble efforts will not be without his notice and recompense. May he see, in all Christian assemblies, not the outward formalism which he must rebuke, but prayer and praise, gift and work, which loyal hearts are offering to the Lord their God!A.R.

Mar 12:42-44

The widow’s mite.

If we get a single ray of light, decompose and analyze it, we may argue from it to all the light that floods the world; to its nature, its source, and its effects. So this act of generosity and devotion, simple and slight though it is in itself, contains in it elements of truth which are world-wide in application. Amongst the many lessons it teaches, we select the following:

I. THAT GOD‘S PEOPLE ARE EXPECTED TO BE GIVERS. Many have a singular objection to insistence upon that. They willingly listen to words of solace; they rejoice in descriptions of heaven; they are not reluctant to hear the errors of their theological antagonists exposed and rebuked: but the duty of Christian giving is scarcely so popular with them However. “It is enough for the servant that he be as his Master;” and we find that he who taught in the temple also “beheld how the people cast money into the treasury.” That treasury was a Divine institution. In spite of abuses, it was for many generations a witness of what God expects; as a recognition of his claims, and of the claims of others, on the part of rich and poor. If God is our Creator and Preserver, if every day we live and every power we have is his gift, we must honor him “with our substance, and with the first-fruits of all our increase.” If he has redeemed us by his Son, if “we are not our own, but bought with a price,” any sacrifice we make in gift or work should be a source of joy. If we be members of one brotherhood, we are bound to have the same care one for another. We are to do this, not in the way which is easiest to ourselves, most accordant with our tastes, or most likely to bring us credit; but as those who are seeking to become like him, who is kind to the unthankful and to the unworthy.

II. THAT SOME KINDS OF GIVING ARE OF HIGHER WORTH THAN OTHERS. Our Lord did not blame or despise the gifts which the rich made when they cast in much. They were doing what was right. Whether their offerings went to support the temple, or as a substitute for sacrifices, or for distribution to the poor, they were given towards what was regarded as the work of God. But there was nothing in the offering of the rich which called for the special praise bestowed on the widow.

1. It is to be observed here that Christ commended what most people would blame. You would probably argue thus: “Two mites were of little importance to the treasury, but of great importance to her. If she had given one and kept the ether, she would have showed not only piety, but good sense. As it was her gift was insignificant, and at the same time it was rash and needless.” Yet, in the eyes of our Lord, the gift was right; and it was commended for this very reasonthat she had cast in all the living that she had. We cannot but be reminded here of an incident in the house of Simon. When Mary broke the alabaster box, and poured the spikenard on her Savior’s head, the disciples said that it was a foolish impulsethat if sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor, it would have been of real utility; now a waste of the ointment had been made. In reply, Jesus taught them that nothing given to God was wasted; that the aroma of such an offering went beyond the world of sense. On both occasions our Lord commended what others blamed.

2. Further, the reason for his commendation was not what many would expect. It was not the value of the gift; for two mites was a smaller sum than we could give if we tried to find our smallest coin. Nor was it the object to which the money was given which Christ approved. He knew how much there was of what was false under the glitter of the ceremonial worship of the temple. He had just rebuked the very men who would manipulate these funds. He looked on to the day when the temple would perish, and a nobler Church would arise on its ruins. Hence, in commending the widow’s gift, which supported this ritual, he condemned those who withhold their help till an organization is exactly what they wishwho refuse to support what does not accord precisely with their tastes and views. Those who habitually do this crush in their hearts the germ from which gift and sacrifice spring.

3. The widow‘s gift was approved because it was the offering of a simple heart, full of love to God. She wished to show gratitude, and to give a deliberate expression of her confidence in God; and therefore she gave up her living, and threw herself on him who feeds the birds, and never forgets his children.

4. Most of all the gift was valued because it represented self-sacrifice. They gave of their abundance she gave all her living; in other words, herself. Too often we lose the highest blessedness because we do not cross the border-line which lies between self-indulgence and Christ-likeness. When we begin to feel that some service is a burden, and demands a strain, we give it up to some one else to whom the effort would be less! Let us seek the spirit of the poor widow, who knew that God could do without her gift, but felt that her love could not be satisfied without her sacrifice.

III. THAT OUR LORD QUIETLY WATCHES OUR GIFTS AND SERVICES. We may put into the treasury wealth, talents, prayers, tears, etc. None are unnoticed by him. And he looks in order to approve, not to condemn. His disciples might have said, “She is imprudent to give her all; she is priest-ridden; she is supporting a formal worship which is a barrier to the kingdom of Christ.” But the Lord looked beneath the surface. He saw the pious intention, the pure purpose, and out of all the chaff on that threshing-floor he found one grain of purity and reality, and rejoiced over it as one finding great spoil.

IV. THAT OUR LORD APPROVES ALL THAT IS DONE IN A RIGHT SPIRIT. He did not praise her to her face, nor in her hearing. When the delicate flower of devotion is taken in the hot hand of popular applause, it withers; but, left in the cool shadow of secrecy, it lives. Hence the widow heard no flattery or approval, though she went home with inward satisfaction because she had done what she could. It is a pleasure to make a sacrifice for one we love. The young girl gives up her money, her position, her future, herself, to the man she loves, and rejoices in doing it. The father will not begrudge it when he looks at his children’s faces, though for their sakes he goes off in a shabby coat to his daily duty. Love longs for sacrifice, and glories in making it. Now, it is a sacrifice so inspired which our God approves and commends. In the day when the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed, when nothing will be overlooked, services which the doer had forgotten, which the Church thought trivial and the world laughs to scorn, will be recompensed, and even “a cup of cold water, given in the name of a disciple, will not lose its reward”A.R.

HOMILIES BY R. GREEN

Mar 12:1-12

The parable of the vineyard; or, unfaithfulness and its reward.

A rude demand upon Jesus for his authority led him to ask in reply “one question” which awakened the consciences of his interrogators and threw them into confusion and difficulty. They were hurrying him on to his final hour, and he must needs take advantage of every opportunity of finishing the work given him to do. Therefore “in parables” he spake both “unto them” and “against them,” which but roused their ire, and sent them away to plot and plan for his destruction. No word was needed to’ declare who was represented by the vineyard. “For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel.” And the details of the parable were minutely historic. How often had “a servant” been sent “that he might receive of the fruits of the vineyard”! How often had he been “handled shamefully”! Now a last chance is offered. “He had yet one, a beloved son: he sent him last unto them.” The rest is prophecy ready to be fulfilled, and so soon to become history also. But the appeal, “What therefore will the lord of the vineyard do?” he does not leave them to answer, but supplies it in simple words and in such manner as to make the reply an admonitory warning. Alas! our eyes behold the precise fulfillment. And the rejected stone is now the Foundation-stone, “the Head of the corner.” The parable reveals

I. A GRACIOUS EXAMPLE OF THE DIVINE GOODNESS AND PATIENCE. It was a direct dealing with Israel, but it was an indirect dealing with all men. The comment is found in the historic development of the history of Israel.

II. A PAINFUL INSTANCE OF HUMAN UNFAITHFULNESS. This, as in all instances of a want of fidelity to important trusts, was sadly disastrous. But not only to them to whom the trust was committed, for all men expiate the sins of every unfaithful one. The condition of society is lowered; good fruits are blighted and cannot be gathered; pains and penalties are incurred which fall heavily upon all. Had every man been faithful to his trust, what a paradise this hard earth would have presented! But the world walks on a lower plane for every unholy life passed upon it. Had that vineyard brought forth its due fruits, all nations would have been made partakers. Of the few small patches which bore, the world has the fruit in those holy records which are as the salt of the earth. But how much of the corn and the oil and the wine is wanting! On this account is presented

III. A SAD ILLUSTRATION OF THE DIVINE JUDGMENT. Israel is deposed. The sacred trust is withdrawn. The vineyard is in other hands. The unfaithful husbandmen, as such, are destroyed. Alas for Israel! Her crown is in the dust, her harps upon the willows. She does not with her voice sing the pleasant songs of Zion. She is not the great spiritual power in the earth for which she was designed. Her calling and election she did not make sure. True, for the fathers’ sakes she remains a testimony in the earth. But it is as a broken-off branch. The world gains nothing by Israel’s rejection. The Gentiles are wise to weep and mourn on her behalf; and, knowing that “God is able to graft them in again, they are wise to pray earnestly for their recovery. “The receiving of them” would be “life from the dead.” So let every Gentile believer pitifully behold the nation sitting in the dust, having become the uncircumcision in the spirit: and at this time, alas! “separate from Christ” and really “alienated from the commonwealth of” the true “Israel, strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope.” Nor can it be otherwise till they who now are “far off are made nigh in the blood of Christ.”G.

Mar 12:13-17

The tribute money.

Unable to take him with their wicked hands, because they dared not, they send selected men from the Pharisees and the Herodians. They have instructions to lay a trap with a view “to catch him in talk.” “In vain is the net spread in the sight of any bird.” But these blind catchers thought him to be blind also. In specious words they ply him with a question relating to an oppressive tax. “If he held that payment should be refused, he would compromise himself with the Romans; if he sanctioned it, he would embitter himself both with the Herodians and the ultra-national party,” But he who “knew what was in man” knew their hypocrisy, and in a word, and doubtless with a look, exposed it. “Why tempt ye me?” Then with the coin before their eyes, which was at once the symbol of their unfaithfulness to God and their subjection to man, he threw back upon them the onus of answering themselves in their own conscience and by their own deeds. Ah! “in the net which they hid is their own foot taken.” But Jesus does not only evade the dilemma on which they had cast him; nor does he merely utter a word of condemnation to them who had failed to “render unto God the things that are God’s,” and who would be only too glad to escape rendering “to Caesar the things that” were “Caesar’s.” But he, in high wisdom, teaches the great truth for all time, that fidelity to the demands of God and fidelity to the constituted powers of earth need not clash. The loyalty of the subject and the obedience of the saint are on the same plane. So a just distribution is made of things pertaining to Caesar and of things pertaining to God, and yet the true unity of the service rendered to both is declared; and, moreover, as God is above all, the duty to him includes the duty to Caesar. For our learning we may see

I. THAT CHRIST BEARS HIS TESTIMONY TO THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE CLAIMS OF EARTHLY AUTHORITY. The Christian need be under no apprehension of following this principle out to its extremest limits. For if the earthly government be oppressive and unjust, he knows full well that the King of kings has his own methods of deposing; for he believes that “he putteth down one and setteth up another.” He has learned to submit even to oppression for conscience’ sake. But these questions respect the extreme, the occasional, the exceptional conditions of political life. Fidelity to the constituted head of authority would, according to Christian principles, secure the divinely appointed Head.

II. CHRIST UTTERS HIS EVER–REITERATED DEMAND FOR FIDELITY TO THE INALIENABLE CLAIMS OF GOD. “Render unto God the things that are God’s.” Is anything not God’s? If in truth all is first rendered to him in an honest consecration to his will, then may that which he ordains for the neighbor be given to the neighbor; that which is for the poor to the poor; or that for the family, or for self even, so given; and therefore that which is for “the king, as supreme,” to the king may be rendered.

III. LET THE MAN‘ HIMSELF, WHO TRULY IS GOD‘S, BE RENDERED UNTO GOD. One has beautifully taught thus: “That which bears Caesar’s image is, as belonging to Caesar, to be given to him; but that which has God’s image belongs to God.” Had Israel been faithful to “render” themselves “to God” they would not in those late days have been given up to the Romans, as in earlier days fidelity to God would have kept back the armies of Nebuchadnezzar. The great principle to guide nations and individuals alike is truly to be the Lord’s. Then, when he is the God of the nation, all other service and all other obligations fall into their proper order and degree of importance. And he who serves his God in humility will serve his king in fidelity. He who is obedient to the Lord’s claims will know how to render the claims of masters, and lords, and rulers, and sovereigns. Not more truly is the Law one,” Thou shalt love the Lord thy God,” and “Thou shalt love thy neighbor,” than is “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”G.

Mar 12:18-27

The resurrection from the dead.

A new class of antagonists now assail the great “Master” with a case of casuistry, designed evidently to bring the doctrine of the resurrection into contempt. “In the resurrection whose wife shall she be of them?” Was this one of the flimsy, difficulties on which they relied for a defense of their position, as so often men screen their scepticism behind a mere veil of difficulty? And did they depend in any real degree upon an imaginary inconsistency to warrant them in denying the grandest hopes of the human heart? Be it so or not, they gave opportunity for the most precious defense of the common faith. The Church to-day is rich in an inheritance of defensive writing drawn from the pens of holy apostles and righteous men. But though it is of unspeakable value to her to read the inestimable words of the great Apostle to the Gentiles, yet to them who have wholly committed themselves to Jesus, who truly own him as “Master,” and no other, it is most comforting to find him entering the lists against all Sadducean unbelief for all ages. It is enough: Jesus is the defender of the faith. We want no more. In one sentence we read both an answer to the difficulty and a confirmation of the truth: “For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as angels in heaven.” Thus is clearly revealed

(1) The fact of the resurrection; and

(2) the conditions of the resurrection life.

I. The first clear teaching is, THE DEAD LIVE. “That the dead are raised even Moses showed;” so little had these sons of Moses understood his words. And now Jesus shows it more clearly, and points to the life as an immortal life: “Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.” True, this is affirmed of them “that are accounted worthy to attain to that world, and the resurrection from the dead.” But that “the dead”that is, all the dead”are raised Moses showed, as touching the dead that they are raised.” Oh, precious words! Thanks be to God, life does not end in a tomb I Abraham and Isaac and Jacob live; yea, “all live unto him,” if unto us they die. Jesus points to the source of all error on this as on so many subjects: “Ye know not the Scriptures, nor the power of God.” On these two hang all the true faith of men. No one can read “the Scriptures” and deny the resurrection. In Jesus’ view the old Scriptures sufficiently affirmed the great truth. And he who in these days would defend himself against the assaults of unbelief must sit at the feet of Jesus. No one can doubt his belief in the resurrection. “And why is it judged incredible?” All difficulties vanish in presence of “the power of God.” If the question of the “foolish one” be urged, “How?How are the dead raised?” the only answer faith should vouchsafe is, “The power of God.” And if the further demand is pressed, but “with what manner of body do they come?” it must still be replied, “God giveth it a body.” Let the true believer stand by the Word of God. The resurrection rests not for its certainty on a foundation of human ratiocination or scientific deduction, neither is it by them to be overturned. The one impregnable wall of defense for this most precious article of human faith and this most precious condition of human life is in the combined words, “The Scriptures: the power of God.”

II. As to the CONDITION OF THE RESURRECTION LIFE. We wait to know this. One only truth is enough to carry with us, an earnest of all”as angels in heaven.” The truths are almost antiphonal: “Neither can they die any more; as angels in heaven.”G.

Mar 12:28 – 34

The great command.

One more question ere it could be said, “No man after that durst ask him any question.” Alas! on the human side it, like the others, is a mere quibble, or based on one. But though man asks in his folly Jesus never answers according to it, but always according to his supreme wisdom, in a manner so high, so far-reaching, so seriously. He trifled not with the perplexities of men. He knew nations and tribes of men would feed on his words to the end of time, and he gladly bore witness to all those truths against which the human errors in that erring age stood out in humiliating contrast. The Christian teaching grows up out of the Mosaic. The later development of the one system does not set aside a single moral principle of the earlier. The solution of the difficulty which beset a few amidst the many commandments for which priority was urged laid down a permanent principle for all time, and took up into Christianity the essential teaching of Mosaism. We read

I. THE SIMPLICITY OF THE CHRISTIAN TEACHING. One word embodies itthe word “love.” To this Christ gave the utmost prominence and the most beautiful illustration. This simple rule engages the devotion of the central energy of the entire life. It describes the first effort of feeble infancy and the ripest experience of the mature Christian age. It is at once the point from which all pure and active obedience takes its departure, and it is the end towards which all spiritual growth and culture tends. It is the alpha and the omega of the Christian spirit. To love, to love God first and supremely, and in that love to love the neighbor, is so complete a dedication of the entire inner man to the service of the Most High, that all commands requiring the details of that service are anticipated. From these branches hang all the rich, ripe clusters of fruitful obedience.

II. THE ELEVATING TENDENCY OF THAT TEACHING, WHICH SETS FORTH THE LOVE OF THE INFINITE EXCELLENCE AS THE HIGHEST AND MOST OBLIGATORY OF ALL ITS REQUIREMENTS. That holy system of spiritual morality first called Mosaism, or Judaism, and now called Christianity, is for ever raised to the highest pitch of excellence and worthiness by making this its central, its almost solitary, command. All that is good in morals, all that is pure in aspiration, all that is beneficent in action, flows from this fountain. Theperpetual aim to reach to the most entire love of the most exalted Object of human thought must insensibly raise the moral and spiritual character of every one who is controlled by so worthy an endeavor. It ensures the recognition of the soul’s subjection to the authority of God; it makes the Divine excellences objects of ceaseless contemplation; it subordinates all the aims and activities of life to the holiest purposes; and, while withdrawing the life from the degradations of low and unworthy motives and pursuits, it regulates the whole by an ever-present, powerful, and satisfying principle of life, at the same time preserving the simplicity and moral cohesionthe unityof the character. Never was a holier law uttered; never were the feet of men directed to a purer, safer path; never was a firmer, truer basis laid on which to found a kingdom of truth, of peace, and of well-being.

III. THE PRACTICAL CHARACTER OF THE CHRISTIAN TEACHING“Thou shalt love thy neighbor.” To present rules for the government of every hour and the regulation of every transaction of life would be far less effective than to seize upon a principle like this, which underlies all conduct. It may be entrusted with the guidance of the life in the absence of controlling regulations and minute details of obligatory observance. It leaves the spirit free to act according to its own generous impulses or prudent caution. Such a rule prevents the necessity for “Thou shalt not steal;” “Thou shalt not kill.” Love embraces all virtues; it fulfils all righteousness. The regulating principle, “as thyself,” points to the due estimate of one’s own life; such a love for it as would prevent its exposure to evil, and such a discernment of the true interests of life, and the common participation in those interests, as would lead to right adjustment of the relative claims of self and the apparently conflicting claims of others. Truly, “there is none other commandment greater than these.” This, indeed, is “much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.” And he who has come to appreciate the truth and beauty of this is “not far from the kingdom of God;” while be who keeps this commandment already dwells within the security and shares the blessedness of that kingdom.G.

Mar 12:41-44

The widow’s gift.

How many lessons cluster around this unique incident! The watchful eye which is ever over the treasury of the Lord’s temple; the discernment between the gifts that come of “superfluity” large turbans in themselves but small in comparison with the abundance left untouched; and the gifts that betoken the penury of the giver, but at the same time declare the entireness with which all his living is devoted to the service of God; and the great Master’s principle of judgment. “Many that were rich cast in much;” one that was “poor” cast in little; yet the one “cast in more than all.” Let not our thoughts leave the Lord’s treasury, and let that treasury denote to us whatever ‘is employed for the right ordering of the Lord’s worship in his own holy house; all that is expended in charitable works for the benefit of men, whether in ministering to their spiritual or temporal necessities. The good Lord has himself chosen to represent works of benevolence shown to the suffering and poor to be works done unto himself. All that is thrown into their treasury is thrown into his. “Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of these my brethren, even these least, ye did it unto me.” So it comes to pass that both the Lord and the poorthe Lord in heaven and the suffering and needy on earthmake their appeal to our charity for such help as we may be able to render. In responding to this double appeal let us measure our gifts:

1. By the claims of our Lord upon us.

2. By the necessities of our neighbor.

3. By the measure of our sympathy with him and them.

I. IF THE CLAIMS OF OUR LORD guide us, what limit shall we put upon our “gifts”? To him we owe more than our all. To him we are indebted for life and breath, and all things; for the bright light of the morn and the cooling shades of eventide; for reason and affection and friendship. The good and perfect gifts of righteousness, of holy hope, of calm faith, of heavenly love, come down from him. All that is beauteous and bright in life; all that raises us from degradation and need. Ah! the sands on the sea-shore are as little likely to be numbered as the gifts of the Lord’s bounty, which lay us under tribute from sheer thankfulness to him.

II. But our NEIGHBOUR‘S NEED presents little less impressive claims upon us. How multiplied! How various! How imperative! Christian charity needs little labor to find out the suitable channels of its activity. How greatly has that charity grown and multiplied since the Lord cast the first handful of seed into the warm heart of man! Many ages have been characterized by large gifts for the comfort, the physical need, the spiritual help of man. This present age is not a whir behind the chief in the largeness and variety of its gifts and efforts. To the Lord be praise!

III. But the true spring of all charity and the true quality of it is to be found in a PERFECT UNITY OF INTEREST WITH MEN, AND A PERFECT SYMPATHY WITH THE LORD. True charity is the outflow of the love of God and love of man. It is one of the highest reaches of wisdom to discern the perfect community of interest which every man has with every other. This the Lord saw: this, alas! is but little seen by us. tie who can once become possessed of the belief that he has no true and permanent interest which is not identical with the highest interests of his race, has taken the first step towards the attainment of a pure, a boundless, a Divine charity. And he who would sustain this lofty sentiment must learn to see that all he has he holds by the will and for the good pleasure of the Lord on high. He will learn that concerning himself his utmost wisdom is, with St. Bernard, to say, “Lord, I have but two mites, a body a soul; I give them both to thee.”G.

HOMILIES BY E. JOHNSON

Mar 12:1-12

The evil husbandmen.

I. FAITHLESS TO GOD; UNJUST TO MEN. If men do not know God, neither can they know those who are sent of him. The Pharisees were set against Jesus because he was the only living presentment of their own neglected duties to God.

II. VIOLENCE FALLACIOUS TO THOSE WHO EMPLOY IT. The wicked husbandmen Blindly slay the emissary. It is of no avail. The Erinys, the fury, the avenging spirit of the dead man, will come back. The violence against Jesus brought about the removal of his murderers from their place.

III. ABUSE OF GOOD MEANS ITS LOSS. “The vineyard given to others.” So do great inheritances melt away from their possessors; and the industrious servant comes to the seat of the dissipated lord. The very intelligence that is misused decays; and the loss of influence means loss of moral life.

IV. THE SCALES OF DIVINE AND OF HUMAN ESTIMATION OFTEN DIFFER. A lesson often suggested by Christ. “Men are not what they seem.” In science, in literature, in politics, the greatest men often rise up, untrained in the schools, to confute the conventional judgment of the time about education. So in religion. It is difficult to realize that the Savior was once scoffed at as a rustic, illiterate teacher from Nazareth. Yet so it was. There is a profound wonder in the turns of human life; and so long as we have eyes for the hand and working of God, miracles in the truest sense will never cease.J.

Mar 12:13-17

The dialectic of Jesus.

I. DISHONEST SUBTLETY MATCHED BY CLEARSIGHTED WISDOM. We must be, if possible, “wise as serpents,” but, above all, honest in purpose. It is the false tongue that stammers, and the fox-like cunning that entraps itself.

II. VERBAL TRUTH MAY CONCEAL HEART FALSEHOOD. They spoke most truly to Jesus about himself, and yet most untruly. So of all words designed to flatter and deceive. There may be a divorce between the tongue and the heart.

III. CONDENSED ARGUMENT. In the use he made of the coin, Jesus suggested a whole train of argument. The coin with its image was a symbol of earthly rule. The kingdom of Jesus is ideal, and independent of the forms of this world (Joh 18:36). The loyalty of the Christian to the kingdom which is righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost, teaches him how to act in relation to worldly governments. But Christianity is not to be confounded with politics. “No earthly governments can prevent the spiritual service of God. That should not be rendered to them which is due to God only” (Godwin).J.

Mar 12:18-27

Sadducean error.

I. DIFFICULTIES OF RELIEF ARE OFTEN IDLE LUXURIES OF THE MIND. One cannot suppose that these men were really troubled by such a question as they raised. It was sheer idleness, bred of useless school life. And so with many theoretical questions pretended to be of serious importance: pressing into what is inaccessible and kept in reserve by God. They are “solved by walking.” Actact rightly here and now, and the question will solve itself, or cease to interest.

II. DISINGENUOUS REASONING FALLS INTO STUPIDITY. What else but childish is this confusion of earthly relations with the spiritual kingdom? Marriage, birth, and death are time-changes; belong to the idea of earth and time, not to eternity. And the least instructed mind feels that this is so. There are enough mysteries in the present life to engage our attention without prying into those beyond.

III. THE RAY OF TRUTH. The one great historic Word, the basis of the national consciousness, sheds its sufficient light upon the question. God does not claim dead objects for his own. Souls that he calls his, “do of his own dear life partake,” and “never will he them forsake.” It was a mystical interpretation of the ancient Word; and often there are times when we may take refuge in the mystical interpretation, and feel that it is the deepest and the best. “Those who are now dead to men still live in God.”J.

Mar 12:28-34

The essence of religion.

I. THE LEADING IDEA FOR THE INTELLIGENCE. The unity of God, his personality, his supreme lovableness. “All love is lost save upon God alone.”

II. The leading maxim for the will. To love one’s neighbor as one’s self. Kant said, trying to translate the gospel into his own dialect, “Act so that the maxim of thy will may be the principle of an universal legislation.”

III. The moral surpasses the ritual in religion. Surpasses it by including it with itself. Nothing can be offered to God dearer than a just and a loving life. Love, in fact, is the measure of life’s worth. And he who believes and acts upon these principles is recognized by Christ as being a Christian.J.

Mar 12:35-37

David’s Son.

I. David’s prophetic spirit. “He was moved by the spirit of truth when he foretold that his son would rule over all, and when he owned him as Lord.” The psalm had originally another bearing. But as all true poesy “smacks of something greater than it seems,” and has deeper meanings than meet the eye, so did the words of the psalmist reach forth into remoter times and higher relations.

II. Christ’s identification. “He declared that he was the Son of David, and that his priesthood and kingdom were universal and everlasting.”J.

Mar 12:38-40

Traits of the scribe.

I. THE SEEMING GOOD OFTEN THRIVE AND ARE HONORED. Insight into character is rare; men are judged by the outside, and are taken largely at their own valuation.

II. Pretension ever hides emptiness, and often guilt. Fixed for ever for our repugnance, hatred, and contempt is the character of the religious pretender in the Gospel. Men need to be warned that there is more danger to the soul in pretending to a piety we have not got, than in merely having none at all.J.

Mar 12:41-44

The gift of poverty.

I. THE MOTIVE MAKES THE ACTION SPIRITUAL. It is mechanical, conventional, without relation to the spiritual sphere, otherwise.

II. LOVE MAGNIFIES THE VALUE OF THE SMALLEST GIFT. The flower to the sick person, the penny in the plate, may be worth much. The condition of the world would be indictable without the multitude of such little deeds.

III. THE TRUE STANDARD OF WORTH IN LIFE SHOULD BE CLEARLY KEPT IN MIND. We confuse mere giving and doing with that which springs from love too much. Let us not despise little thugs: seeds of love which become great in their result of blessing.J.

HOMILIES BY J.J. GIVEN

Mar 12:1-12

Parallel passages: Mat 21:33-46; Luk 20:9-19.

Parable of the vineyard.

I. THE LORD‘S VINEYARD. A vineyard is often used in Scripture as an object of comparison. The heart is probably represented under this pleasing and beautiful image in the Song of Solomon, where it is written, “My mother’s children were angry with me; they made me the keeper of the vineyards; but mine own vineyard have I not kept.” God’s ancient people are set forth under the same figure in the eightieth psalm, to denote his care for and kindness to them. “Thou hast brought a vine out of Egypt: thou hast cast out the heathen, and planted it.” And a few verses afterward we have the touching prayer, “Return, we beseech thee, O God of Hosts: look down from heaven, and behold, and visit this vine, and the vineyard which thy right hand hath planted, and the branch which thou madest strong for thyself.” In the fifth chapter of Isaiah we have the parable of a vineyard and its explanation, where we are expressly told that the house of Israel is God’s vineyard; the men of Judah his pleasant plants; the grapes which he looked for, judgment and righteousness; the wild grapes produced, wickedness and oppression; so that instead of honesty in the dealings of the people there was the cruelty of the oppressor, and instead of the strict administration of justice on the part of the magistrates there was the cry of the oppressed. Every reader of the New Testament is familiar with our Lord’s representation of himself as the true Vine, of disciples as the branches, of his Father as the Husbandman, and union with himself as the secret of fruitfulness. The parable in the passage before us is recorded, with slight variation, by St. Matthew and St. Luke. This threefold occurrence of the same parable proves its importance, shows its instructiveness, claims our attention to it, and commands our interest in it.

II. GOD’S CARE OF HIS CHURCH.

1. The culture of the vitae laborious. The care necessary for the proper culture of a vineyard is surprising, and to those unacquainted with it almost incredible. It is so in the vineyards of the Rhine, for example, at the present day. As you pass along the “wide and winding” river, many a vine-clad hill presents itself to view. Vineyard rises above vineyard, and terrace above terrace, from the bottom to the top of the hill, in some instances to the height of a thousand feet. How beautiful they look! How pleasant to work among them and keep them! you are apt to suppose. If, however, you visit them and talk with the vine-dressers, you will find your supposition a grave mistake. The duty of the vine-dresser is no sinecure. His work is never over. It is continued throughout the year. Every season brings something for him to do. Planting, propping, pruning, plucking the useless leaves, weeding, hoeing, and gathering the vintage occupy all his time. From year in till year out he knows little or no relaxation; his care ceases not all the year round. How beautifully this illustrates God’s care of and attention to his people! It was so also in ancient times. There is a fine didactic poem on husbandry by an old poet who flourished nearly two thousand years ago, and whose works are read at school and college still. He has left us a glowing and life-like description of the continuous toil and laborious industry of the Italian vine-dressers in his day. He there tells us that it was indispensable to plough the soil three or four times a year, to break the clods daily, to unload the branches, and thin the leaves. Even in winter the vine, after being bared of its leaves and fruit, has to be subjected to the pruning-knife, the ground to be dug, the lopped branches burnt, and the props brought into the house. Besides, twice in the year the luxuriant leaves, and twice the weeds and brambles, were to be removed. Further, it remained to cut the reeds and willows that grew on the river’s bank, and prickly shrubs in the woods, to bind the vines withal and fence them. In addition to all this, the ripening grapes must needs be protected from hail, and rain, and rust, and accidents of the weather. No wonder, then, he adds, that the husbandman’s care ran in a circle, nor ending with the closing year, extended to the coming season. So great is the attention in general needed by vineyards, whether in ancient or modern times; such and so great God’s care for the vineyard of the Church. But particular instances are here enumerated.

2. The panting. He planted it. The vineyard soil needed to be the choicest and the best. Soil that would do very well for pasturage, or soil that might be quite suitable for tillage, would not answer for a vineyard. Nothing but soil of rich and generous mould would suit the planting of the vine. The situation required to be carefully selected. A good deal depended on the aspect, and it needed to be sheltered from the wintry wind, screened from the ungenial cold, and exposed as far as possible to the bright beams of a warm Southern sun, like the sunny slopes of Zion, the sides of Lebanon, or the vale of Eshcol Hence the prophet says “My well-beloved hath a vineyard on a very fruitful hill. It naturally followed that vineyards were the most valuable of all property, at least in land. So the Church of God is very precious in his sight. It is very costly, too, for he bought it with his blood; and hence the injunction “to feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood” It is a place distinguished for fruitfulness and enriched with blessings; a place of precious privelege of numerous ordinances, of heavenly light, where the Sun of Righteousness sheds his brightest beams, and spiritual life is cherished; a place where the Word of truth is possessed, perused, and faithfully preached; where the gospel of his grace is proclaimed: where his Spirit is poured down; where gracious influences are at work and Divine power felt; where the Divine presence is promised and enjoyed, and where every promised blessing is sure to be bestowed and fully realized. The plants, moreover, are the most preciouseven the best of their kind. Man, in his original state, was made but a little lower than the angels. God made man upright, and thus, when he proceeded from his hands, he was stamped with the Creator’s image, possessed of uprightness, and invested with dominion. And man, even in his fallen state, possesses noble endowments and distinguished faculties. He has understanding capable of studying the works and ways of God, affections to love and prize him, a will that can be moved by motives, tender emotions, and far-reaching sympathieshigh powers of head and heart. These powers, it is true, are all weakened and misdirected in consequence of sin. But oh! when they are quickened by the Spirit of God and influenced by his grace; in other words, when the sinner is united to the Savior, when by faith he is engrafted into him and become a living branch of the living Vine, a fruitful branch of the true Vine, he is then a plant of the choicest kind, qualified for yielding spiritual fruit, and capable of showing forth the praises of the Creator. Then does he correspond and come up in some measure to his original condition as God himself describes it: “Yet I had planted thee a noble vine, wholly a right seed: how then art thou turned into the degenerate plant of a strange vine unto me?”

3. The fencing. He set an hedge about it. The people of Israel were hedged in, both politically and physically. The position of Palestine contributed to this separation of its inhabitants. On the north were the slopes of Lebanon, on the south the Idumman desert, on the west the Great Sea, on the east the Jordan with its lakes, and Peraea beyond. But God’s spiritual vineyard was his Church, as existing first among the Jewish people and then in Gentile lands. The direct reference is to the Jewish Church as established under Moses, Joshua, the judges, and the theocracy; the great fence that hedged it in was the Law. But we may go back yet further; for God set an hedge about his Church in Old Testament times, from the call of Abraham, by the covenant of circumcision made with that patriarch, and by the whole written Law, moral as well as ceremonial, given to his descendants. In this way he separated the vineyard of the Church from the wide and wild common of the world. The Law was “the middle wall of partition” between Jew and Gentile. But in Christian times, and among Gentile peoples also, the Church is fenced around. There is still a hedge between the communion of saints and the world of the ungodly. Profession of the doctrines which Christ and his apostles taught, and the practice of the duties they enjoined, compose that hedge. Faith in his promises and obedience to his precepts draw the line of demarcation broad and wide between them. The exercise of wholesome discipline keeps the hedge in order. And a Church that does not or cannot exercise this salutary check on its members, saying who are and who are not worthy of its membership, is so far forth powerless for good, or like salt that has lost its savor. The vineyard of which the Prophet Isaiah (Isa 5:5) speaks had a double fenceboth a hedge and a wallas it is written, “I will take away the hedge thereof, .. and break down the wall thereof.” We have frequently seen two hedges round a gardenthe outer one of thorn, the inner one of beech. Thus it is with the vineyard of the Lord. A visible profession of Church membership is the outer hedge; an interest in Christ is the inner oneand, it must be added, the essential one. All who have embraced the mercy of God in Christ Jesus are within the enclosure of the Church in the true sense; all who have not are aliens to the commonwealth of Israel. “As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believed on his name.” These are safe within the hedge. “He that believeth not shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.” All such are outside the hedge.

4. Important practical question. Inside this hedge or outside it? This is the questionthe great question. What, then, is our position individually? Out of Christ, we are without God, for “no man cometh to the Father but by him;” and without hope, for the hope of the hypocrite will perish; and without bumpiness, the secret and source of which is to “delight one’s self in God, and he gives thee thy heart’s desire;” Without life, for “this is life eternal, to know trice the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent;” and without heaven, for Christ is the way thither, as well as the door of entrance. In Christ we are sheltered from the storm of coming wrath. The sunshine of the Divine favor rests on us; the fruit of the Spirit is borne by us. We can then say, “There is now no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” There is the hedge of Divine providence about the Church, as we read, “In that day sing ye unto her, A vineyard of red wine. I the Lord do keep it; I will water it every moment: lest any hurt it, I will keep it night and day.” We are invited to walk about Zion and consider her strong fortifications, counting her towers, contemplating her bulwarks, and considering her palaces, so as to convince ourselves that those defences, unscathed by the assaults of enemies in the past, will remain as impregnable for the future.

“On the Rock of Ages founded,

What can shake thy sure repose?

With salvation’s walls surrounded,

Thou may’st smile at all thy foes.”

5. Gospel ordinances. The wine-fat, or vat, was a large stone trough deposited in the ground, to receive the juice of the grape squeezed out in the winepress placed over it. The winepress thus consisted of two partsa receiver for the grapes, and beneath that a receptacle for the expressed juice. The press above, or upper trough, in which the grapes were placed to be trodden out by human feet, amid songs and shouts of joy, was called by the Latins torcular; by the Greeks the word used by St. Matthew; and by the Hebrews gath. Through a hole in the bottom of this the expressed juice flowed into the vat beneath, or lower trough, which the Romans called lacus; the Greeks , the word used by St. Mark in the passage before us; and the Hebrews yekev, from a root meaning “to hollow out” or “deepen;” while both words occur together in the Prophet Joel (Joe 3:13), “The press (garb) is full, the vats (yekavim) overflow.” The winepress and wine-vat were sometimes made out of one block, and communicated by an aperture; sometimes they were distinct stones connected by a tube. If, then, we are to follow out the allegory explaining its particular parts, we may understand by the winepress the ordinances of the gospel, namely, prayer, praise, the Word, and sacraments; though others understand thereby gospel fruits or graces, as charity, thanksgiving, and devotion flowing like wine through it. If, then, we understand by the winepress gospel ordinances, by the wine-vat we may understand the place where the grace conveyed through these ordinances is received and enjoyed. God has appointed certain means for the communication of wisdom, strength, consolation, and every needful gift and grace. These means are the winepress; and the place where these spiritual supplies are obtained and preserved is the wine-vat. Let us take as an example, and in order to illustrate our meaning, the sacrament of the Supper. The Savior, when he made himself a sacrifice for sin, trod the winepress of God’s wrath alone, while “of the people there was none with him.” The sacrament of the Supper is a feast after and upon that sacrifice; the place where this feast is dispensed, and its benefits to our spiritual nourishment and growth in grace partaken of, is the wine-vat. The bread is a lively emblem of Christ’s body, and a striking symbol of the hidden manna; the wine is a true token of his blood, and a sweet foretaste of that wine which we shall drink new in the kingdom of our Father; the table of the Lord, round which the faithful meet and share the feast, is symbolized by the wine-vat. In any case, even if we may not attach a specific meaning to each particular detail, these details imply generally God’s care of and provision for his Church.

6. Practical remarks. Mark, then, the connection of the press and vat; they go together. So is it with the ordinances, and the place of their administration; the ordinances, and the benefits they convey; the ordinances, and the blessings God gives us to enjoy through them. If we would glorify God, it must be in the manner he has appointed; if we would enjoy him, it must be in the use of the means he has provided; if we would enjoy not only the communion of saints, but also the communications of Divine grace, we must not forsake the assembling of ourselves with the people of God; if we would promote at once the glory of God and the growth of grace in our own hearts, we must “remember the sabbath day to keep it holy,” and the sanctuary to frequent it duly and devoutly. In a word, if we would be truly wise for both worlds, we shall ask wisdom of God, who “giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not,” waiting at the posts of wisdom’s doors to hear what God the Lord will say to our souls.

7. The tower. This was a place of safety and strength for the watching and guarding of the vineyard, and for the protection of its fruits. The temple in the old economy was the tower, and the priests that lodged around might be regarded as acting the part of the watchmen. More usually, however, the prophets are spoken of as the watchmen. “I will stand upon my watch, and set me upon the tower, and will watch to see what he will say unto me, and what I shall answer when I am reproved.” The faithful preachers of the gospel and pastors of the Christian Church are watchmen now, who watch as those who must give account; while to both teachers and taught, pastors and people, preachers and hearers, the words of the Lord, as addressed to the Prophet Ezekiel, while he sat by the river of Chebar, are applicable still. In that instructive passage we read, “Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me. When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand. Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.” In consideration of all these careful arrangements, surely God might well say, as he did by the Prophet Isaiah, “What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it?”

III. GOD‘S EXPECTATIONS FROM THE VINEYARD OF THE CHURCH.

1. He sends his servants to claim a portion of the fruit. The parable shows in its immediate application the privileges of the Jews, their perversion and abuse of those privileges, and the consequent punishment. If, then, by the husbandmen we understand the ordinary ministers of the Jews’ religion, as the priests and Levites; the servants sent were the extraordinary messengers, the prophets raised up on special occasions and for special purposes, and other eminent preachers of righteousness. The householder or owner claimed a portion of the produce. The rent was thus payed in part of the fruit; it was to be in kind, on the well-known metayer principle, long so prevalent and still practiced in parts of Europe; it was to consist of grapes, not gold. The occupiers acknowledged the claim, but failed, or rather refused, to meet it, and were ruined in consequence. God expects fruit; why should he not? Who ever planted a vineyard that did not expect to eat of the fruit of it? Who, then, will venture to gainsay the justness of God’s claims? He is no hard Master; he is no rack-rent Proprietor; he does not “reap where he has not sown, nor gather where he has not strawn;” he never requires impossibilities.

2. Correspondence between the fruit of the vineyard and the own expectations. The fruit of the spiritual vineyard should correspond with the expectations of the great proprietor in three respects.

(1) In quality this correspondence should exist. He looks for grapes-good grapes off every vine which he has planted in his spiritual vineyard. There is heart-fruit, consisting of faith, hope, charity, purity, the thoughts being purified by the inspiration of the Spirit; there is the lip-fruit of prayer, praise, holy conversation, edifying discourse, and speech seasoned with salt; life-fruit follows, and is manifested in works of faith, labors of love, patience of hope, devotion of spirit, all holy living, and the necessary sequel in holy dying at the last. In a word, God looks for holiness in all his people. He looks for those blessed and beautiful fruits of which St. Paul. writes to the Philippians, when, summing up the Christian graces, he says, “Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honorable, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on [or take account of] these things.” He looks for those excellences of character, conduct, and conversation which St. Peter recommends to the strangers scattered abroad, saying, “Giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; and to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; and to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.” God the Father had these fruits in view when he planted the vineyard, for he “predestinated us to be conformed to the image of his Son;” God the Son prepared for them when he gave up the ghost, for it was to “redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works;” God the Holy Spirit provided for them when he renewed us in the spirit of our minds, making us new creatures in Christ Jesus, and so commenced our sanctification. He is waiting and willing to produce them; for “the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance.” The gospel calls us to holiness, and when embraced in sincerity and truth, produces it in increasing measure from day to day, leading us to the higher Christian life; for “the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world.”

(2) But the quantity of the fruit borne must be directly proportionate to the grace bestowed. It must be in exact correspondence with the talents God has given us, and the time those talents have been lent us; with the mercies great and manifold which he has conferred upon us; with the privileges with which we have been favored, and the period of their possession; in a word, with all the opportunities of whatever kind and advantages of whatever sort, which we have been permitted to enjoy. With every talent God is pleased to give us he says, “Occupy till I come.” Every one of the blessings bestowedand oh, how great the number!lays us under an additional obligation; every mercy imposes increased responsibility. Is it health or wealth? is it influence or example? or any other means of receiving good for ourselves, or imparting it to others? Whatever it is, it adds to our accountability, and, if abused, it will be sure to augment our guilt, and in the end aggravate our condemnation.

3. We are reminded, further, that the fruit must be in season; for “at the season,” that is, when the season for the fruit arrived, the proprietor sent his servants for the stipulated portion. “When the time of the fruit drew near,” says St. Matthew; when sufficient time for growth and for reaching maturity has been allowed, the time of fruit draws nigh. After opportunities of usefulness have been enjoyed, God comes to see how we have employed them. The righteous man yieldeth the right fruit in right quantity, and at the right time. This is his characteristic, as stated in the words of Scripture: “He shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season.” In the natural world, every season of the year has fruit peculiar to itself. Spring has its flowers, in addition to its buds and blossoms; summer has its plants, and tubers, and waving fields of corn; autumn has its own abundant fruitfulness in golden grain, matured fruits, and ripened grapes. So in the spiritual world and in the vineyard of the Church; in a season of prosperity God expects gratitude as well as gladness; in a season of adversity he expects patient resignation to his will; in a season of depression and consequent privation, he expects dependence on his providence; in provocation he expects meekness; in temptation, resistance by the help of God; in wintry days of darkness, contentment with the Divine allotments; in seasons of sunshine, humility; and in all seasons diligent seeking and faithful serving of God.

IV. GOD‘S PUNISHMENT OF UNFAITHFULNESS.

1. Shameful treatment of God‘s servants. These wicked husbandmen went from bad to worse. They were determined that God should get no fruit from his vineyard; and accordingly they maltreated, in the most scandalous and barbarous manner, the servants sent by the proprietor to demand his due portion of the produce. Their conduct shows a gradation of wickedness they beat, they wound, they kill. The word , rendered “wounded in the head,” is peculiar, and for this, which appears to be its primary sense, there is no classical parallel. Where it occurs, it is generally used in the secondary sense of bringing under one head or sum: hence it has been variously rendered in accordance with this signification, some explaining it to reckon with one in a summary manner, paying with blows instead of fruit; others to deal with one summarily; and others, again, to complete and bring to a head their maltreatment; but the ordinary rendering of “wounding in the head” is confirmed by the Syriac and Vulgate, and is commonly accepted. More important for us is the historical evidence which the Scriptures of the Old Testament afford of this shameful treatment of God’s servants. They were threatened with death, thrown into dungeons, actually slain, stoned, fawn asunder, as passages that readily suggest themselves to any careful reader of God’s Word abundantly prove. The special honor reserved for the Son marks his superior rank, and distinguishes him from all others, whether designated servants or dignified with the name of sons of God. He is the one Sonthe well-belovedclaiming and entitled to peculiar reverence; the rightful Heir, too, of the inheritance. Thus, as we read in the beginning of the Epistle to the Hebrews, “God, having of old time spoken unto the fathers in the prophets by divers portions and in divers manners, hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in his Son, whom he appointed Heir of all things.” The Son took upon him “the form of a servant” while sojourning in our world.

2. A supplementary parable. The parable of the vineyard and the wicked husbandmen, with all its fullness of details, omittednecessarily omittedone or rather two points, which are supplemented by a parabolic statement from the hundred and eighteenth psalm. Whereas the son and heir is left dead outside the vineyard, as Christ suffered, “without the gate,” while the lord of the vineyard himself avenges his death, and punishes the husbandmen for their diabolical conduct; it was necessary to complete the picture by his revival and return to the place of dignity and power, as the Foundation and chief Corner-stone, upbearing and binding together the two walls of the sacred edifice. And not only so; it behoved to represent him as revenging in person his wrongs on those who slew him, according to the one parable, or who rejected him according to the other; while this feature is more fully exhibited by the first and third evangelists, who tell us that “whosoever shall fall on this stone”that is, stumble and fall over this stumbling-stone of his humiliation”shall be broken”sorely bruised ()and so receive great hurt and grief: “but on whomsoever it shall fall”in wrath, because of their final impenitence”it shall grind him to powder;” literally, winnow () him, just as the stone cut out of the mountains without hands was seen in prophetic vision to smite and shatter the great world-image, and scatter its fragments like chaff before the winds of the winter.

3. Improvement of the subject. The primary reference is to the Jews as a Church and people. Their own conscience made application of it to themselves; hence their indignation, but not their improvement. The transference of the vineyard was not exactly from the Jews to the Gentiles, but to the faithful who should be collected together out of both, and connected by the chief Corner-stone into one.

(1) The first lesson taught us here is of a national character. The Jews had great privileges, but their misuse or abuse of those privileges subjected them at last to fearful retribution. God had shown much forbearance, sending servant after servant to call them to repentance and reformation, and last of all and greatest of all, his own Son; but in vain. They refused to return and repent, crowning their wickedness by crucifying the Son of God. At length the cup of their iniquity was full and overflowing; and, forty years after this climax of their enormities, Jerusalem was laid in ruins, the beautiful house in which their fathers worshipped reduced to ashes, and themselves scattered throughout the world.

(2) We learn God’s mode of dealing with Churches or nations that, like the Jews, are highly privileged, and have long enjoyed instructions and ordinances and spiritual benefits. As he continues blessing after blessing, so he sends call after call, and by his servants summons them to the improvement of those blessings. If they refuse complianceif they neglect to use those blessings in his service and to his gloryruin, and that without remedy, shall be, must be, the sad but sure result. The destiny of the Jewish Church was repeated to some extent in that of the Oriental Churches, and in that of the African Churches; and by all these cases the Churches of our own land and of every Christian people are solemnly warned against the misuse of mercies, and the abuse of privileges, and the just judgments of God with which apostate Churches and sinful nations are visited.

(3) Individual units make up the aggregate of a nation or the membership of a Church, so in our individual capacity we add our quota to the general guilt on the one hand, or to the purity of a Church and the righteousness of a nation on the other. Therefore are we bound individually to serve God “in holiness and righteousness before him all the days of our life,” and to intercede for the practice and prevalence of that righteousness in all others, which exalts a nation or a people, so that the mercies of God may be improved and his judgments averted.

4. A practical and personal question. Are those fruits which God, as we have seen, expects from us, ours? Are we duly meeting his claims upon us? Are we responding to them gratefully and faithfully? Have we, by the constraining mercies of God, and by the constraining love of Christ, and for the love of the Spirit, presented ourselves, body, soul, and spirit, “a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is our reasonable service”? Do we appreciate as we ought all God’s care and kindness, our privileges and means of instruction and improvement? Or, like certain vines in the land of Palestine, which, as we read in Scripture, produced poisonous berries, are we bearing fruit of similar poisonous quality? It may be that, instead of grapes, good grapes and proper fruit, we may be bearing grapeswild grapes, not only inferior in quality, but poisonous in their nature. Our lips, instead of being instruments of righteousness, may be polluted and polluting with falsehood and deceit and evil-speaking; with corrupt communication, levity, and profanity. Our life, instead of a living epistle, seen and legible to all, may be an exhibition of bitterness and wrath and anger; of envy, pride, injustice, and uncharitableness; of sensuality and sinfulness. Our heart, which is the fountain-head and source of all, may, by remaining unrenewed and unpurified, continue the wellspring of evil thoughts, vile affections, and corrupt desires. If this be the case with any of uswhich may Heaven forbid!how great must be the disappointment of the Lord of the vineyard! how base our ingratitude! how awful the doom! how swiftly and suddenly destruction may come!

5. Fatal error. Delay is not deliverance. Many flatter themselves, as Agag, that the bitterness of death is past, at the very moment that vengeance is on the road and ready to overtake them. Some regard warnings as words of course, and consequently worthless. Others, like the Jews of old, treat shamefully the messengers of Divine mercy; and neglect, or despise and make light of, or speak evil of, the ministers of religion, forgetting the fact that whoso despiseth the messenger despiseth the Master that sent him. Thank God but few reach this bad eminence in their enmity to God, and the things of God, and the servants of God! We may neglect ordinances and abuse privileges, but, in doing so, we treasure up for ourselves “wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;” we may despise the terrors of the Lord, and turn a deaf ear to the voice of warning; we may disappoint the reasonable expectations of ministers and members of the Church; we may defraud the great Proprietor of the fruits which his grace was calculated to produce, and which he had every reason to expect; and God may not take vengeance on our evil works speedily; yet that vengeance will be aggravated by delay, and more fearful when it comes. Those guilty of such sinful neglect and abuse of privileges shall in the day of Divine vengeance be swept as with the besom of destruction, or thrown as into a furnace seven times heated, and that for ever and ever. Let us beware of the progressive nature of sin; for if we forget instruction, that forgetfulness will cause us to neglect it; that neglect, again, will lead us to despise it; that contempt for instruction will beget dislike of our spiritual teachers who impart it; and this dislike will engender hatred of the truth in general; and the end, the fearful end, will be destruction irremediable and terrible from the presence of the Lord and the glory of his power. “And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell.”J.J.G.

Mar 12:13-17

Parallel passages: Mat 22:15-22; Luk 20:20-36.

Question of the tribute money.

I. A SNARE LAID. This tribute money ()was the poll or capitation tax payable to the Roman Government, from the time Judaea became subject to the Roman power. Judas of Galilee headed a revolt against this tax, but perished with his followers. If our Lord allowed the lawfulness of paying tribute to Caesar, it would have compromised him with the Jewish nationalists, who would not have been slow to charge him with contempt of the Law of Moses for the words of Deu 17:15, “Thou mayest not set a stranger over thee,” were explained by them as forbidding the payment of tribute to a foreign power. If he acknowledged the unlawfulness of such payment, he came into direct collision with the Roman authorities. In the one case, he offended the Judaean patriots and his own Gaiilean followers; in the other, he incensed the Herodian royalists who acquiesced in Roman rule. On the one side, it was treachery to national and patriotic aspirations and Messianic prospects; on the other, it was treason against the Roman Caesar and Pilate his governor. Such was the snare laid for him; such was the trap they set in order to catch him. Thus they thought to entangle him, rather, ensnare () him, in his talk, as a fowler ensnares a bird.

II. THE SUBTLETY WITH WHICH THE SNARE IS LAID.

1. They put the question in such a categorical form as seemed to them to necessitate a simple “yea” or “nay; “thus, “Is it lawful to give tribute, or not? Shall we give, or shall we not give?” The double question is to emphasize their earnestness, and to invite a prompt reply, affirmative or negative; though the first question may refer to the lawfulness of the payment, and the second to its expediency or advisability.

2. The motive which actuated them to interrogate our Lord so peremptorily was most sinister and insidious. The evangelists, viewing their conduct from different standpoints, characterize it differently. This difference, which we discover by comparing the parallel passages, is most instructive. Their conduct in propounding this ensnaring interrogatory was wickedness according to the first evangelist; it was craftiness (), according to the third; while, according to the second, it was hypocrisy (). Their question had a close connection with and combined all these three elements; it was conceived in wickedness, cradled in craftiness, and cloaked by hypocrisy. Thus the interrogators acted as spies, or “liers in wait” (), as St. Luke calls them, while they feigned themselves just men. Our Lord tore off their mask, exposing them in their true colors, and addressing them in their real character, when, according to St. Matthew, he says, “Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?”

3. The object they had in view was to embroil the Savior with the royalists, and so compass his destruction. For this purpose it is plain they desired a negative answer, as appears suggested by the words, “Thou regardest not the person of men,” implying such fearlessness as would enable him to reject foreign authority as inconsistent with acknowledging God as their King. Their ulterior object, as stated by St. Luke, was “that they might take hold of his speech, so as to deliver him up to the power and to the authority of the governor;” in other words, to deliver him to the Roman power, rule, or magistracy (), and to the lawful authority or jurisdiction () of Pilate, the Roman procurator.

4. Necessity brings together strange companions. The Pharisees were as mean as they were unprincipled, and as untruthful as they were unprincipled and mean. They proved their want of principle by the unnatural coalition which they formed with the Herodiansthe patriots so called who opposed foreign dominion with the elastic politicians who owned the Roman power; the foes with the friends of Caesar; sticklers for the Law with the supporters of an authority deemed inimical to the Law. Their meanness was manifest in the fulsome flattery with which they addressed our Lord; while in their base untruthfulness they pretended to approach him with a quasi-case of conscience, though in reality they were carrying out the counsel for his destruction.

III. THE SAVIOUR‘S REPLY. Had he replied in the affirmative, he would have forfeited his popularity; had he answered in the negative, he would have forfeited his life. The latter was the consummation wished for by the members of this unholy alliance of superstition with political expediency. To give vividness to the transaction, our Lord ordered the production of a Roman penny, or denarius, a small silver coin of the value of sevenpence halfpenny, or eightpence halfpenny at most. On that coin was an image, the head of the then reigning sovereign, Tiberius, while round it ran the usual superscription or inscription, consisting of the name and titles of the emperor. Our Lord, as if in surprise, asks, half in irony and half in indignation, what all this meant, and whose it was? Their unavoidable answer was, “Caesar’s;” and this very answer broke the snare, and the bird escaped out of the net of the fowler. Then said our LordGive back () to Caesar what belongs to him; pay back to Caesar what you acknowledge to be his. The coinage proves the king, the currency affords evidence of his property; while, on the other hand, you render to God the things that are his.

IV. IMPORTANT PRINCIPLE. This principle, so important and far-reaching, though plain enough in its general bearing, has been differently understood. Some have regarded the two parts of the answer as entirely distinct, as though belonging to different spheres, or placed on different planes, and so incapable of clashing or even coming in contact; as though he said, “Pay your taxes, and perform your religious duties, but keep the two things apart.” More usually they are understood as two separate departments of human duty, coexisting and compatible; or as standing to each other in the relation of the part to the whole. According to the second of these three views, the payment of civil dues and the observance of religious duties stand side by side together, and as equally obligatory: that is, render to Caesar, as civil ruler, the obedience that belongs to him, and to God, as spiritual Sovereign, the homage of the soul stamped with the Divine image, and therefore his due; or, in a more literal and narrow sense, according to some, pay the civil taxes to the government of Caesar, and the didrachma, or temple-tribute, for the support of the sanctuary and service of God. We understand it in the larger sense of obedience to our earthly sovereign and duty to our heavenly King, as co-ordinate and coexistent, perfectly compatible but not competitive; or, according to the third view, the former may be regarded as part of the latter. This great principle, properly understood and acted on, would have prevented many an unseemly collision of Church and State, and many a sinful encroachment of one on the domain of the other. It would have prevented the papal power from trampling the crown of kings in the dust, as in the reign of John, and it would have prevented, on the other hand, the persecution of the Church by the State, as in the days of the Puritans. Our Lord intimated by his reply, that so long as the Jews were allowed to worship God according to his own appointment, and enjoyed the protection of the Roman power therein, they were under obligations to contribute to the taxes that supported that power. But these obligations to civil government were not to suspend, or set aside, or in any way interfere with the higher and holier obligations which they owed to God. Duty to God must be the regulating principle of duty to civil rulers; the latter is then part of, or rather part and parcel with, the former. Thus our Lord clearly indicated the respective provinces of civil rulers and of religious teachersthe relative positions of secular authority and spiritual power. Thus he solved the problem of two kings and two kingdoms in one realm; thus he taught obedience to civil governors in temporal things, while in spiritual their duty to God was paramount. No doubt many nice points may present themselves, and many delicate questions may arise in practically carrying out the principle stated; but we are not without light from other parts of Scripture to guide us in the application of this principle, even in cases of greatest difficulty.J.J.G.

Mar 12:18-27

Parallel passages: Mat 22:23-33; Luk 20:27-40.

Question of the Sadducees touching the resurrection.

I. IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION. Though the question propounded in this section was proposed for a captious purpose, and in order to entangle, yet, divested of its technicalities, it is a most important one. There is no subject more closely connected with the immortal hopes of man than that to which the above section refers. The doctrine of the resurrection is implied, or directly inculcated, in several passages of the Old Testament. In the New, in which life and immortality are so clearly brought to light, we find many plain statements in regard to it. The whole subject is discussed at large, and fully elaborated in that magnificent chapter, the fifteenth of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, while our Lord, in the Scripture under consideration, puts the argument pithily and pointedly in reply to a question from the Sadducees.

II. AN ASSUMPTION. In clearing away the rubbish, with which they overlaid the difficulty whereby they thought to ensnare him, the Savior charges them with ignoring the mighty power of God, who quickeneth the dead and calleth the things which be not as though they were. He taxes them with resting their reasoning on an unwarrantable assumption, to the effect that the condition of life in heaven would be the same as here on earth, while, on the contrary, the occupants of that spirit-world are as the angels of God. Having, moreover, affirmed their ignorance of those Scriptures which they themselves acknowledged, he proceeds to the proof of the doctrine impugned.

III. IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. By his quotation from the third chapter of Exodus, he establishes the immortality of the soul. God is the God of the living, for the relationship thus indicated is connected with the bestowal of benefits and blessings, while the dead are beyond the reach of these: but the passage quoted affirms God to be the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; therefore these patriarchal men, whose earthly tabernacles, long dissolved, had mouldered and mingled with kindred dust, still lived in some sense and state and place. Their souls lived in God’s sight and in God’s presence and to God’s praise. The-immortality of the soul is thus a clear enough conclusion, but the proof is not so plain with regard to the resurrection of the body; and yet this is the very point in dispute. It is a well-known fact that several of the heathen philosophers who believed in the immortality of the soul, seem never to have dreamt of the resurrection of the body. How, then does our Lord’s plain proof of the former doctrine serve-the purpose of establishing the latter? This is the difficulty of the passage. The following considerations will resolve it:

IV. GROUND OF SADDUCEES’ DENIAL OF THE RESURRECTION. The chief reason of the Sadducees denying the resurrection of the body was their disbelief in the immortality of the soul. They repudiated the last-named doctrine, and on this very ground rejected the former. They said the soul does not exist apart from, or after, the dissolution of the body. “They gainsay the duration of the soul” is the testimony of Josephus to their opinion on this point. From this they inferred that there is no likelihood of, nor need for, the body to be raised up, as, according to this erroneous opinion of theirs, there was no soul to reanimate, or reinhabit, or be reunited therewith. Our Lord meets inference with inference. Having proved, as we have seen, the immortality of the soul, he thus prepares the way for the corollary, that the body would be raised from the dust of death, and that soul and body would be then and for ever reunited. They insisted on the extinction of the soul at the death of the body, or its non-existence as distinct from that body, and so wished it to be inferred therefrom that the body would not be raised, and no reunion ever take place. The Savior proves the distinct and undying existence of the soul, and leaves the Sadducees to infer the resurrection of the body and its reunion with that soul from which death had for a time separated it. In this way he opposed the inferential part of his argument to the inferential part of their doctrine, inasmuch as they did not, it would seem, employ expanded argument or developed reasoning. Having demolished the main pillar of their system, he left the frail fabric erected thereon to fall of itself. Our Lord’s reasoning, though concise, was nevertheless conclusive.

V. CONFIRMATION. This view of the subject derives some confirmation from a custom of the ancient Egyptians. They embalmed the bodies of their dead, and so preserved them for centuries. Their object, as is with strong probability supposed, was that the mummy corpse might be prepared for the reception of the returning soul, and for reoccupancy by that former inhabitant, if such were their belief; it was doubtless a ray of light derived from revelation, but distorted as usual in such cases. While they anticipated the glorious fact of a reunion of soul and body, they added thereto the fancy that the same body, unaltered and unimproved, would be its receptacle. Revelation, however, confirms the one, but corrects the other; for these vile bodies shall be raised spiritual bodies, and fashioned like unto Christ’s glorious body.

VI. OTHER EXPLANATIONS. Some, we are aware, understand by resurrection in this passage merely a renewal of life, restricting that life to the soul. In this way they remove to some extent the difficulty involved in the reasoning, but destroy at the same time the proper meaning of the word, as might easily be shown from other Scriptures. Paul, for example, speaks of the resurrection in the ordinary and usual sense when he asks,” How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?” Besides, it is to be observed that, in our Lord’s quotation, God is not called the God of the souls of the patriarchs, but of their compound being, consisting of both soul and body. The reference to marriage in the verses preceding also points to the resurrection of the body as well as to the life of the soul Life is thus implied in relation to both the constituent parts of manpresent life for the soul, future life for the body. Others there are who, understanding the argument to relate exclusively to those who die the death of the righteous, elucidate it in this manner. The Scripture cited by our Lord, in which God declares himself the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, involves the Father-ship of God and the sonship of believers, as appears from such Scripture statements as “I will be to him a God, and he shall be to me a son;” also, “I will be to you a Father, and ye shall be to me sons and daughters.” Again, our adoption as children of God includes the redemption of the body, and consequent recovery from the power of the grave, as may be gathered from Rom 8:23, “We wait for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of the body.” Now, though this explanation plausible, yet it appears too restricted, and not quite in harmony with our Lord’s own words in Joh 5:28, Joh 5:29, “The hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.”

VII. Practical Observations.

1. A few practical thoughts connect themselves with this subject. We learn hence the value of an accurate acquaintance with the Scriptures of the Old as well as of the New Testament. Our Lord refuted his adversaries as he repelled Satan, by an appeal to the Law and to the testimony. He took every opportunity of putting honor on, and claiming respect for, the Divine Word. It is our safeguard against error. His quotation is from a portion of that Pentateuch which has in recent times been the object of repeated and insidious attacks.

2. We see how our Master meets his opponents on their own chosen ground, and reasons with them after their own favourite mode. They put their objections inferentially; our Lord, who always adapted his discourse, whether sermon, or parable, or argument, to his audience, adopts the selfsame method. The Sadducees believed, at least, the five books of Moses; he quotes from an early portion of those books. He denounced their error with mildness, and demonstrated it from the very Scriptures to the authority of which they themselves deferred. He took the ground from under their feet by hard arguments, not by hard words. Persuasiveness, not abusiveness, characterizes his reasoning.

8. Let us seek grace that we may appreciate as we ought the comfort of this doctrine. Our very dust is dear to God. The visible sky above us may pass away, but no particle of this dust shall perish. Let us realize the duty of seeking a part in the resurrection of the just. Let the doctrine have a practical effect upon our hves. With this prospect in view, “what manner of persons ought we to be in all holy conversation and godliness”?

“Those bodies that corrupted fall

Shall incorrupted rise,

And mortal forms shall spring to life,

Immortal in the skies.”

Having this hope within us, let us purify ourselves, and by grace keep the bodily temple undefiled.J.J.G.

Mar 12:28-34

Parallel passage: Mat 22:34-40.

Question about the greatest commandment.

I. PUERILITIES OF THE PHARISEES. The Pharisees busied themselves about the letter of the Law, but had little practical acquaintance with its true spirit. The Jews generally divided the commandments of the Law into the preceptive and prohibitorythe “Do” and the “Do not;” nor was there anything amiss in this. But the Pharisees, we are told, counted the affirmative precepts, and found them as many as the members of the body; they counted the negative, and reckoned them equal in number to the days of the year, viz. three hundred and sixty-five; they then added them together, and found that the total made up the exact number of letters in the Decalogue. They also divided the commandments into great and smallthe more important and the less important, or the heavy and the light; those of greater weight being such commandments as related to the sabbath, circumcision, sacrifice, fringes, and phylacteries. They did not stop with puerilities of this sort, but descended to trifling minutiae, which we have neither time nor wish to record. Some of their distinctions were of a more mischievous kind, such as preferring the ceremonial to the moral Law, the oral to the written Law, and the trifles of the scribes to the teachings of the prophets. They also taught that obedience to certain commandments atoned for the neglect of others; in some measure like persons in much more recent times, who

“Compound for sins they are inclined
By damning those they have no mind to.”

II. THE WHOLE DUTY OF MAN. Our Lord rebuked by his answer those miserable trivialities of the Pharisees, who seemed disposed to bring him into conflict with one or other of the contending parties, headed respectively by Hillel and Shammai. The subject of the question was one about which the schools of these great Jewish schoolmen differed. If he decided in favor of the one, he necessarily offended and lost in reputation as a public religious Teacher with the other; or perhaps they hoped to bring him into contradiction with an answer to the same question which he had sanctioned with his approval. Our Lord shoved aside their rabbinical quibbles, and passed by their hair-splittings and contendings about such petty trifles, to the neglect at once of the spirit and the really weightier matters of the Law. And as “whosoever shall keep the whole Law, and stumble in one point, he is become guilty of all,” our Lord, instead of singling out or specifying any particular commandment of the Law, states two comprehensive precepts which embrace the whole Law; and not only sohe not only reduces the ten commandments of the Decalogue to these two precepts, but underlying these two precepts is one single principle into which they are both capable of being resolved. He thus simplifies the statement of moral duty into a single principle, and that principle itself expressed in the one word “love;” for “love is the fulfilling of the Law.”

III. THE SUPREMACY OF LOVE. It has been conjectured that our Lord, when quoting in reply the passage from Deu 6:4-9, one of the four Scriptures usually inscribed on the parchment slips of the tephillin, or phylacteries, and called Shema, “Hear,” from beginning with this word, pointed to the lawyer’s tephillin. This would add to the pictorial or graphic nature of the reply; but nothing could be added to the beauty of the words quoted. He cites the preface, teaching the unity of God in opposition to polytheism, and then proclaims the love of God as the source, and love to man as similar and only second thereto. But whence comes this love? Not by nature, for by nature we are “hateful, and hating one another;” only, therefore, by the new birth, when we partake of a new nature; for “if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature, old things having passed away, and all things having become new.” Once we love him who first loved us, we are in the proper position for loving our Father in heaven and our fellow-man on earth. The manifestation of this love to man is doing to others as we wish others to do to us, and this exercise of the so-called, and properly so-called, golden rule, is loving our fellow-man as a brother, and son of the same heavenly Father; while our love to that Father is supreme, influencing the affections of the heart, the faculties of the mind, the spiritual powers of the soul or life, and employing the whole strength of all and each of these. God is worthy of all thisworthy of our best affections, worthy of our earliest and strongest love. The practice of this principle would make this earth a paradise, restoring it to all the freshness and happiness of its first and early dawn; rather, would it make a heaven upon earth.J.J.G.

Mar 12:35-37

Parallel passages: Mat 22:41-46; Luk 20:41-44.

The counter-question of our Lord.

I. QUESTION OF OUR LORD IN TURN. Our Lord had by this time been asked, and had triumphantly answered, the most perplexing, difficult, and delicate questions that the ingenuity of man could devise. His adversaries had been signally confuted, and covered with shame. These questions were five in all One concerned his authority; another was political, about the tribute money; the third was doctrinal, about the resurrection; the fourth speculative, about the greatest commandment; and the fifth disciplinary, about the adulteress. By his more than masterly reply to the first, he defeated the Sanhedrim: by his reply to the second, he surprised and silenced the Pharisees and Herodians; by his answer to the third, he confuted, if he did not convince, the sceptical Sadducees; by his reply to the fourth, he satisfied the Pharisaic scribe, learned in the Law; by his answer to the fifth, he settled, if not to the satisfaction of scribes and Pharisees, at least to their shame, the question of discipline. It is now time that, having passed this ordeal, he should retaliate.

II. OBJECT OF HIS COUNTER–QUESTION. Our Lord’s design was not so much to show them their ignorance, and overwhelm them with confusion, as to instruct them with respect to the true character and person of the Christ. Their low views were to be elevated, their carnal notions were to be spiritualized, their blind eyes were to be enlightened. Their idea of the person of Messiah was that he would be just a man like themselves; of his position, that he would be a powerful temporal king; and of his reign, that it would extend over a great earthly kingdom. By his question he let light in upon their dark minds in reference to all these subjects. With the Scriptures in their hands, and all their trifling about the minute things concerning the letter, they had no right spiritual apprehension of their long-desired and much-respected Messiah. His question proves to them that Messiah was not only human, but Divine; not only David’s Son, but David’s Lord; that before his exaltation he must suffer humiliation. They expected a triumphant Messiah, but were not prepared for his lowly condition as a sufferer; they overleaped the cross, expecting all at once and from the first the crown. Crucifixion before glorification was what they could not understand; a spiritual kingdom of righteousness and peace and joy they would not understand, “their wish being fat to their thoughts.”

III. PRACTICAL USE OF THE QUESTION. “What think ye of Christ?” was his ques as recorded by St. Matthew. We repeat to ourselves and others the same que:What think we”What think ye of Christ?” What think ye of his lifethat less life, that surprising life, that life which believer and unbeliever alike so admire, and even rival each other in lauding and extolling? What think ye of events of that lifeits purity and yet its suffering, its power and yet its sorrows? What think ye of his deathso wonderful in many ways, so singular in all its asp and so efficacious in all respects? What think ye of his resurrection? Are ye risen with him, to seek the things above? Do ye look to him as the firstfruits of a glorious harvest? and are ye seeking a part in the resurrection of the just? What think ye of his ascension? Are ye satisfied that he has ascended up on high, leading captl captive, and having received gifts, even for rebellious men? And have ye shared in t gifts? What think ye of his intercession? Do ye feel that he is interceding for and are ye gladright gladof having an Advocate with the Father, even Jesus Christ the righteous? By your answers to such questions ye may judge your state, entertain, we trust, “good hope through grace.“J.J.G.

Mar 12:38-40

Parallel passages: Mat 23:13-39; Luk 20:45-47.

Warner against the scribes and Pharisees.

He warns his disciples against

(1) their ambitious

(2) against their avaricious greed, and

(3) against their hypocrisy.

We need daily to pray for preservation from all these.J. J.G.

Mar 12:41-44

Parallel passage: Luk 21:1-4.

The widow’s mite.

I. THE VALUE INDICATED. A mite () was something very small; our word to represent it being from minute, through the French mite. The value of the two was three-fourth of an English farthing. But it was her all, and showed her singular self-denial. Accordingly, our Lord measured the merit of her liberality not by the amount she gave, but by the self-denial which the gift involved.

II. CHRIST SEES ALL THINGS. He saw this poor widowwhat she gave and why gave. He sees all we do and all we think, for he knows what is in man. He sees us restrain the evil that we do, overrule it, and punish it; he sees us to approve of the go we do, encourage in the present time and recompense it in the time to come.

III. TRUE STANDARD OF LIBERALITY. Christ on this occasion did not overlook large gifts of the rich; but they could spare these out of their abundance, without stinting themselves or really pitying the poor. He fixed attention on the widow’s mite, for it her all; and so she could ill spare it, and could only be considered as giving it from sympathy with and compassion on the poor. Three things are to be taken into account in our estimate of Christian liberality:

(1) the motive of givingit must be the glory of God and the good of man;

(2) the manner of givingnot by constraint, but of ready mind, and so God loves the cheerful giver; and

(3) the measure, which should just in proportion as God has prospered us.J.J.G.

Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary

Mar 12:1-12 . See on Mat 21:33-46 . Comp. Luk 20:9-19 . Matthew makes another kindred parable precede, which was undoubtedly likewise original, and to be found in the collection of Logia (Mar 12:28-32 ), and he enriches the application of the parable before us in an equally original manner; while, we may add, the presentation in Mark is simpler and more fresh, not related to that of Matthew in the way of heightened and artificial effect (Weiss).

] after that dismissal of the chief priests, etc.

] therefore not as Luke has it: , to which also Matthew is opposed.

] parabolically . The plural expression is generic ; comp. Mar 3:22 , Mar 4:2 . Hence it is not surprising (Hilgenfeld). Comp. also Joh 16:24 .

Mar 12:2 . According to Mark and Luke, the lord receives a part of the fruits; the rest is the reward of the vine-dressers. It is otherwise in Matthew.

Mar 12:4 . Observe how compendiously Matthew sums up the contents of Mar 12:4-5 . [146]

] The conception of maltreatment lies at the foundation of the comparative also , just as at Mar 12:5 . Comp. on Mat 15:3 .

] they beat him on the head . The word is not further preserved in this signification (Vulg.: in capite vulnerarunt ), but only in the meaning: to gather up as regards the main substance, to set forth summarily (Thuc. iii. 67. 5, viii. 53. 1; Herod. iii. 159; Sir 35:8 ); but this is wholly inappropriate in this place, since it is not, with Wakefield, Silv. crit. II. p. 76 f., to be changed into the meaning: “ they made short work with him .” [147] We have here a veritable solecism ; Mark confounded with , perhaps after the analogy of and (Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 9 5).

(see the critical remarks): they dishonoured him, treated him disgracefully , the general statement after the special . The word is poetical, especially epic (Hom. Il. i. 11, ix. 111; Od. xvi. 274, al. ; Pind. Pyth. ix. 138; Soph. Aj. 1108; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 251), as also in this sense the later form , of frequent use in the LXX. (Eur. Hel. 462, al. ), which in the prose writers is used in the sense of inflicting dishonour by depriving of the rights of citizenship (also in Xen. Ath. i. 14, where is to be read).

Mar 12:5 . . ] Here we have to supply: they maltreated the dominant idea in what is previously narrated (comp. , Mar 12:4-5 , where this conception lay at the root of the ), and to which the subsequent elements and are subordinated. Comp. Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 252 [E. T. 293]. But Mark does not write “in a disorderly and slipshod manner,” as de Wette supposes, but just like the best classical writers, who leave the finite verb to be supplied from the context in the case of participles and other instances. See Bornemann, ad Xen. Sympos. iv. 53; Hermann, ad Viger. p. 770; Ngelsbach, Anm. z. Ilias , Exo 3 , p. 179.

Mar 12:6 . The . (see the critical remarks), which is peculiar to the graphic Mark, has in it something touching, to which the bringing of into prominence by the unusual position assigned to it contributes. Then, in vivid connection therewith stands the contrast of Mar 12:7-8 ; and the trait of the parable contained in Mar 12:7 f. certainly does not owe its introduction to Mark (Weiss).

Mar 12:8 . Not a hysteron proteron (Grotius, Heumann, de Wette), a mistake, which is with the greatest injustice imputed to the vividly graphic Mark ; but a different representation from that of Matthew and Luke: they killed him, and threw him (the slain) out of the vineyard . In the latter there is the tragic element of outrage even against the corpse, which is not, however, intended to be applied by way of special interpretation to Jesus.

Mar 12:9 . . . .] not an answer of the Pharisees (Vatablus, Kuinoel, following Mat 21:41 ); but Jesus Himself is represented by Mark as replying to His own question. [148]

Mar 12:10 . ] What Jesus has set before them in the way of parable concerning the rejection of the Messiah and His divine justification, is also prophesied in the Scripture , Psa 118:22 ; hence He continues: have ye not also read this Scripture, etc.? On , that which is drawn up in writing, used of individual passages of Scripture , comp. Luk 4:21 ; Joh 19:37 ; Act 1:16 ; Act 8:35 .

Mar 12:12 . . . .] connects adversative clauses without changing its signification, Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 147 f.; Winer, p. 388 [E. T. 545]. It is an emphatic and in the sense of: and yet . Especially frequent in John.

The words , which are not to be put in a parenthesis, are regarded as illogically placed (see Beza, Heupel, Fritzsche, Baur, Hilgenfeld, and others), and are held to have their proper place after . But wrongly. Only let be referred not, with these interpreters, to the chief priests, scribes, and elders, but to the , which was witness of the transaction in the temple-court. If the people had not observed that Jesus was speaking the parable in reference to ( ) them (the chief priests, etc., as the ), these might have ventured to lay hold on Him; but, as it was, they might not venture on this, but had to stand in awe of the people, who would have seen at once in the arrest of Jesus the fulfilment of the parable, and would have interested themselves on His behalf. The chief priests, etc., were cunning enough to avoid this association, and left Him and went their way . In this manner also Luk 20:19 is to be understood; he follows Mark.

[146] All the less ought the several to be specifically defined; as, for instance, according to Victor Antiochenus, by the first servant is held to be meant Elias and the contemporary prophets; by the second, Isaiah, Hosea , and Amos ; by the third, Ezekiel and Daniel . That the expression in vv. 2 4 is in the singular , notwithstanding the plurality of prophets, cannot in a figurative discourse be surprising, and cannot justify the conjecture that here another parable of the three years of Christ’s ministry has been interwoven (Weizscker).

[147] This explanation is set aside by , which, moreover, is opposed to the view of Theophylact: . The middle is used in Greek with an accusative of the person ( ), but in the sense: briefly to describe any one . See Plat. Pol. ix. p. 576 B.

[148] That the opponents themselves are compelled to pronounce judgment (Matthew), appears an original trait. But the form of their answer in Matthew ( . . .) betrays, as compared with Mark, a later artificial manipulation.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

2. The Parable concerning the Counsel of the Sanhedrim against the Messiah. Mar 12:1-12.

(Parallels: Mat 21:33-46; Luk 20:9-17.)

1And he began to speak1 unto them by parables. A certain man planted a vineyard, and set an hedge about it, and digged a place for the wine-fat, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country. 2And at the season he sent tothe husbandmen a servant, that he might receive from the husbandmen of the fruit of 3 the vineyard. And2 they caught him, and beat him, and sent him away empty. 4And again he sent unto them another servant: and at him they cast stones, 3 and 5 wounded him in the head, and sent him away shamefully handled. And again4 he sent another; and him they killed, and many others; beating some, and killing some. 6Having yet therefore one son, his well-beloved, he sent him also last unto them, saying, They will reverence my Song of Solomon 7 But those husbandmen said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours. 8And they took him, and killed him, and cast him out of the vineyard. 9What shall therefore the lord of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others. 10And have ye not read this scripture: The stone which the builders re jected is become the head of the corner: 11This was the Lords doing [from the Lord], and it is marvellous in our eyes? 12And 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.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

See the parallel passages in Matthew and Luke.Mark relates only the second of the three parables, which Christ, according to Matthew, connected with His rejection of the commission of the Sanhedrim, for the purpose of indicating to them what He awaited at their hands, and how they, as the murderers of the Messiah, should be subjected to the punishment of losing the Messianic kingdom. It is the very parable in which they are made to appear as the murderers of the Messiah in connection with the persecutors of the prophets. In the first verse, we obtain a hint from Mark that Jesus delivered several parables ( ) before His opponents. Mark is, further, more exact than Matthew in the climax of the messages sent by the lord of the vineyard. According to him, the first servant is beaten upon the back, and sent empty away; the second is wounded in the head, insulted, and sent away covered with disgrace; the third is killed. This triple fate is then met by many others. In consequence of this conduct the lord of the vineyard despatches his son; and of him Mark observes that he was the only son. From Matthew we learn that servants were twice sent,on the first occasion in smaller, on the second, in greater numbers; and their fate is to be beaten, killed, stoned. Luke records only an increased abuse of the several servants despatched. The actual ground-thought is in each case the same: repeated messages, increased injuries, and, as a consequence, augmented hardening of heart and rebellion. Then we have the opposition between the sending of the servants and the sending of the son,between the generous hope of the lord, that pious fear and remorse would be manifested, and the flagitious design respecting the inheritance on the part of the vinedressers. Christ, according to Matthew, makes His enemies pronounce judgment, and declare what would be the dealing of that lord with his servants; according to Mark, the condemnation is expressed by Christ Himself. The passage from the Psalms, Mark quotes in conclusion, as does Luke; the citation from Isaiah, introduced by Matthew, is not here given. And further, the , spoken by the opponents in Luk 20:16, is wanting. Graphic narrative and a freshness of delineation are the characteristics of Mark in this passage, as in others.

Mar 12:2. Of the fruit.The stipulated portion of the product. For the agreement of Matthew with Mark in this passage, consult Note on Matthew.

Mar 12:4. And again he sent.We admit, there is undoubtedly a kind of periodic succession in the missions hinted at; but this is not to be settled in an external, petty way, of which an example is presented in Meyer.At him they cast stones. is to be explained in accordance with the difference between it and the simple . Beating with sticks upon the back, casting stones at the head, marked the first gradation, to which the second pair corresponded,being sent away empty, shamefully disfigured. As this word, in other collocations, means simply to recapitulate, to relate summarily, we must interpret here according to the context. Meyer says, Mark has confounded with . But the latter would have been too strong; and it is possible that the verb before us might have recommended itself to him as capable of bearing two senses, and this double-force we have endeavored to indicate. Wakefields interpretation, They made short work of him, is too one-sided.

Mar 12:9. Killed him and cast him out.The order is reversed in Matthew and Luke. Grotius and De Wette make it a hysteron-proteron. Meyer says, it is only another description.

He will come and will.Kuinoel, following Vatablus, makes this the reply of the Pharisees in Mat 21:24. It is plain that Mark gives a more brief account of the matter. The Lord spoke the judgment which His parable forced from the lips of His enemies. See Note on Matthew.

Mar 12:12. For they knew that He had spoken against them.Meyer would make these words, as well as in Luke, apply to the people and not to the members of the Sanhedrim. He intends this explanation to account for the apparent want of the proper succession in words. According to some commentators, these words should follow . But the order presents no difficulty at all. They would have seized Christ at once very willingly, and yet they ventured not, etc. This is only a reflection; and our words present the key, the concluding explanation. Their common purpose, to put the Messiah to death upon the first favorable occasion, rose in these and similar moments of exasperation to such a pitch, that they would have gladly seized Him on the spot, and killed Him, if they had only dared to do so.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1 Upon the import of the parable, see the remarks upon the passage in Matthew. The planting of the vineyard is to be looked upon as the promise and the law, or generally as the covenant-word in its identity with believing hearts. The hedge is not the law in itself, but is to be interpreted as being that external institution by which Israel was separated from the other nations (Eph 2:14); the wine-press, or tank, considered in connection with the altar of sacrifice and the martyrdom of the prophets, indicates the inner side of the congregation; and hence we are led to consider the tower, typifying civil order, law, and protection, as the opposite of the wine-press. The wine-fat is sunk into the earth and hidden; the tower rises on high, apparent to every eye, the sign of the vineyard.

2. We must remark, further, that we have here pictured the gradual augmentation of selfishness, of hostility to, and revolt from, the Lord, on the part of the theocratic servants and vassals of God. This representation presents at the same time a type of the climax of injuries inflicted upon the prophets, and above all, of the climax of the Lords magnanimity, as opposed to the disgraceful conduct of the servants. The struggle of divine grace with the obdurate unbelief of the administrators of His plan of mercy divides into two periods: 1. The period of long-suffering; and 2. the period of judgment. The first era has two chief periods: a. The Establishment, b. the Missions; which we may divide into, 1. The missions of servants, rising by a threefold climax; 2. the mission of the Son, in which, again, three points present themselves: A. The wicked proposal; B. the murder of the Son; and C. the casting of his corpse forth out of the vineyard. But, in the same manner, are three points to be observed in the Judgment: 1. The destruction of the evil-doers; 2. the entrusting of the vineyard to others; and 3. a donation of the vineyard to others, instead of a relation of vassalage.

3. The nature of the theocracy.On the one side, it had a political, national end; on the other, a religious: and therefore the lord demands not all the fruit, but only a portion. The transformation of the theocracy into hierarchy: 1. The servants of God begin by converting His vineyard, which, under the condition of feudal service, He had let out to them, into a private possession. 2. They treat the prophets and reformers, who desire to call their condition of pependence back to their recollection, as enemies, and so treat mediately the Lord as an enemy. 3. They killed the son and heir, not in ignorance, but knowing him to be the heir, and actually because he was the heir: so evil-disposed were they.
4. The prospect, which the Lord presented, of the vineyard being handed over to strangers, to the Gentiles, must have exasperated the Sanhedrim almost more than the proclamation of their own downfall.
5. The parable before us is illustrated and expanded by the parables which Matthew makes precede and follow. If we examine the idea of this parable, we shall find that the germs of the two other parables are contained in the one before us.
6. Christ the beloved, the only Son, that is, the only-begotten Son of God; Christ, the last sent, is a mark of the revelation being perfected; Christ, the corner-stone, indicates the perfected Redeemer and Head of the Church.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

See the foregoing Reflections, and the Commentary on Matthew.The mournful, historical fact, that the administrators of the sacred things of God fail so often to attain salvation; or, the night side of the priesthood.The history of the priestly office under the old economy, a perpetual symbol of warning to the priestly (ministerial) office under the new.The contest which the Lord, from the remotest ages, has been engaged in with the unfaithful servants of His word and His grace.The immemorial contrast between unfaithful officers of God and faithful messengers from God.How the gracious generosity of God strives with the obdurate unbelief of men up to the moment of final decision.The final purpose of God (They will reverence My Son), and the last purpose of the rebellious servants (This is the heir; come, let us kill him, etc.).The Lord in heaven is willing rather to have the appearance of folly in sending His Son, than that His grace should not be revealed to the uttermost.Grace in highest glory appearing alone, to the apparent neglect of wisdom, justice, and omnipotence, and yet, at that very moment, uniting in itself all the attributes of wisdom, justice, and omnipotence.How all the perfections of God are comprehended in the glory of His grace: 1. By seeming to vanish in it; 2. by again appearing, glorified in it.The last point by which Gods grace seeks to obtain a hold, is pious fear in men.Finally: Christ the last mission of Gods grace to mankind, Joh 3:16; Heb 10:26-27; Heb 12:18.The contradiction in the words, This is the heir, let us kill him; or, the remnant of faith in unbelief, making unbelief damning.To the exercise of long-suffering succeeds that of judgment.The heir and the inheritance cannot be separated.The murder of the heir converted into the glorification of the inheritance.The parabolical statement of Christs glorification, a supplement to the parable of His rejection.The determination of God as to the wicked counsel of the opponents of Christ: 1. Their counsel allowed; 2. defeated; 3. turned to the service of Gods design.The theocracy as a building of God: 1. A completed building; 2. a preparation for a second building.Christ, the great miracle of God.The enmity manifested towards the Lords word, enmity shown to the dazzling brightness with which the picture of His enemies was drawn.The wicked shudder before the picture of their own life.The impotency of Jesus foes.Jesus address before the people; or, the fault of the priests, and the fault of the laity: 1. Difference; 2. connection.

Hedinger:God spares neither labor nor expense in sustaining and extending His Church.Be fruitful in good works.The fate of the servants sent into Gods vineyard.Osiander:The more frequently the obdurate are called to repent, the more insane and senseless is the position assumed by them.The riches of the goodness and long-suffering of God in sending faithful servants, who are zealous to the very death for His house.The witnesses of the truth.O that the pious would stir one another up to goodness with the same industry that the godless excite one another to wickedness!Canstein:Sin is very frightful: it ceases not where it has begun; one sin springs from another.Quesnel:So many deadly sins, so many murderous acts against Jesus Christ.Canstein:The enemies of the truth can, no doubt, in some manner say such in itself is truth; yet their answer proceeds not from truth, because their hearts are not temples of truth.Nova Bibl. Tub.:God and His grace are bound to no people.What the proud generation of Satan rejects, laughs to scorn, tramples under foot, that God raises in defiance of it, to the glory of Himself.The world, despite its efforts, cannot execute its malice and wickedness sooner than God, from hidden reasons, permits.

Lisco:That the only Son is sent, and sent the last, magnifies both the love of the Lord and the offence of the servants.Braune:Official sins: The wine-press is the ministerial office, which should express the letters, the peel covering the divine word, which should expound the divine word, the fruit of the vine, and make wine from it to refresh the heart. (Let it be remarked that this interpretation is not sufficient; comp. Doctrinal Reflection, 1.) Isa 5:1-2. Fates of prophets: Micaiah was scourged (1Ki 22:24), and also Jeremiah (Jer 37:15); Isaiah, Amos, and others were killed (1Ki 18:13); Zechariah was stoned (2Ch 24:21); and we find in Nehemiah (Mar 9:26) that the prophets of God had been slain: Act 7:52; Heb 11:36-38.The judgment of Jesus in the Pharisees mouths (The Lord will come, etc.), the first note of the fearful cry, His blood be on us, and on our children (Mat 27:25).The worlds salvation is, never theless, triumphant. From the Jews it passed to the Gentiles, from the benighted east to the clear west, from the enervated south to mighty north; and when yet farther?Still Gods kingdom remains.They raged, but a hook had been put into their nose, and a bridle into their lips (Isa 37:29).

Schleiermacher:Truth we owe to men, yet we are ourselves bound by it according to our ability.In every circumstance we must let love point out how we can render the best service to the truth in dealing with each individual.Brieger:Let us go forth, therefore, unto Him, etc.: Heb 13:13 (referring to the heir being cast out of the vineyard); Isa 28:16.

Footnotes:

[1]Mar 12:1.Lachmann, Tischendorf, [Meyer] read instead of , following B., G., L., ., [Syriac, Vulgate].

[2]Mar 12:3.Lachmann, Tischendorf read , after B., D., L., . Meyer: from Mat 21:35.

[3]Mar 12:4.The reading of B., D., L., ., Lachmann, Tischendorf, Meyer,] , does not seem thorough enough, as opposed to the climax supported by Cod. A. and others, viz., beating and sending emptywounding in the head and sending home shamefully handled.

[4]Mar 12:5.Codd. B., C., D., L., . omit .

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

CONTENTS.

The LORD is here teaching in Parables. The Pharisees and Herodians try to catch JESUS in his words. The LORD blessedly discourseth on the Resurrection, and with a Scribe: he cautions against the Scribes. The Chapter closeth with the LORD’s Commendation of the Widow’s Offering to the Treasury.

AND he began to speak unto them by parables. A certain man planted a vineyard, and set an 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 well beloved, 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.

We had this parable, Mat 21:33 , to which I refer. But in addition to what was there observed, it may not be improper briefly to remark, that in this, as well as some other parables of CHRIST, we are to keep in remembrance as we pass through the several parts of it, that as it is a parable, we are not to strain the expressions beyond the figure intended; no do more in the application of the whole than as evidently the LORD intended it in a general, way. That the chief scope of it is to shew the LORD’s ill-treatment from the Jewish nation is certain; and the several characters represented in the parable as, plainly mark it out. The certain man here spoken of is GOD the FATHER; the vineyard as is elsewhere described, is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah his pleasant plant. Isa 5:7 . The servants at different times said to be sent, are the Prophets, and faithful messengers preparatory to the coming of CHRIST and his SON the LORD JESUS CHRIST. But when it is said that this certain man went into a far country; that this certain man, put a may be upon the reception his SON might receive; it may be, they will reverence my SON. These are parabolical expressions, and not to be construed in their exact literal sense and meaning. The LORD is everywhere, and always present; and therefore can neither be said to withdraw, nor, go forth. Neither could the LORD be supposed to say, that there was a probability CHRIST would be reverenced by the nation, the Jews, to whom he was sent: for provision was only made for those to reverence CHRIST, of whom he himself spake, and every other: JESUS himself assigned the cause, wherefore they would not accept him. See Joh 6:37 ; Joh 8:43 . But the parable is intended to shew the nation the Jews, in their national character. And the event, in the destruction of the Jewish nation, exactly corresponded to the predictions CHRIST here delivered. The whole nation was overthrown, and the people which survived the destruction of Jerusalem, were scattered over the face of the earth.

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

The Sacrifice of God

Mar 12:6

In this brief and simple verse I find two great things, the things that constitute the very core and heart of the Gospel. I find in it the glory of Christ and the infinite love of the Father.

I. The Glory of Christ. You remember the comment John makes, in the very opening verses of his Gospel, upon the earthly life of our Lord. John and the other disciples had lived for two or three years in closest intimacy with the Word made flesh. And looking back upon that marvellous life, John says that the dominant impression created by it was that of glory, and the glory was that of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. Now that is the glory that Jesus in this parable claims for Himself. He declares Himself to be ‘the only begotten of the Father’. Look at the words, ‘He had yet one, a beloved Son,’ or as the old version puts it, ‘He had yet one Son, His well-beloved’. This sentence, as Dr. A. B. Bruce says, has a most important and vital bearing on the self-consciousness of Jesus. It shows us that Jesus thought of Himself as holding an absolutely unique relationship to God.

II. The Love of the Father. God is the real subject of this verse. ‘He had yet one, a beloved son: He sent Him last unto them, saying, “They will reverence my Son”.’ And the ‘He’ who did all this is God. The subject of it all, you may say, is God’s care and love for Israel. Israel is the vineyard around which He has set a hedge, in which He has digged a pit, and to defend which He has built a tower; and the Israelites are the people to whom He sends servant after servant, and as a last device His Son. And He sent servant after servant and at last His Son because ‘of His great and unspeakable love for them. But though primarily it sets forth the love of God for Israel, it is a picture, too, of God’s love for all men. With the great love of which this parable speaks He besets us and pursues us and seeks to save us. And there are two characteristics of this love which my text emphasizes.

1. This is the first its persistency. Of all the dimensions of the Divine love I marvel most at its length, at its persistency, at its endurance. I know of human loves that have reached down deep and have stretched out wide, and have lifted up their objects high. But I know no human love that can last, and persist, and endure, like the love of God. It is the length of it that fills me with wonder and amazement. It is the length of it that passes knowledge. It outlasts, and out-persists, and out-endures every human love. ‘When father and mother forsake me, the Lord will take me up.’ That is a true word that Pete says, that the long-suffering of our Lord is salvation. The long-suffering of the Lord, the patience and persistence of the love of God, the length of it, that is our salvation.

2. And the second characteristic of the love of God I find in the text is the self-sacrifice of it. ‘He had yet one,’ the text says, ‘a beloved Son; He sent Him’. What a world of almost heart-breaking pathos there is in that little sentence! ‘He had yet One, a beloved Son; He sent Him. ‘ How eager and anxious that master of the vineyard must have been for those husbandmen when, to restore right relations between himself and them, He sent His only Son, His well-beloved Son, knowing to what He was sending Him And this is just a symbol and suggestion of the love of God. How God must have loved us men, who had so grievously sinned against Him, when, to save us. He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. I have no plummet to fathom a love like that. You ask me how great is God’s love. I can only answer, it is as great as the Cross of His only Son.

J. D. Jones, The Gospel of Grace, p. 102.

References. XII. 6. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture St. Mark IX.-XVI. p. 144. XII. 6-9. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxxiii. No. 1951. XII. 12-44. Ibid. vol. lii. No. 2989.

Pharisaism Still Alive

Mar 12:12

Towards the very end of our great Master’s ministry, He seems, almost of set purpose, to come to quite close quarters with the various recognized authorities of His own Jewish Church, as well as with the self-constituted authority of its various parties.

His object, I take it, was twofold. First, He must assert the supremacy of Divine principle over human rule, and secondly, He must be the Divine Champion on behalf of humanity of its own responsible mental and moral freedom.

I. He is not afraid of human nature, though He is ‘grieved at the hardness of their hearts’. He challenges it to come out into the open away from all mere temporary expedients and mechanical rules. He even challenges by His actions conventional authority, conventional opinions, views, and prejudices. There is a suspicion of a mighty claim as He faces Pharisees, Sadducees, and Herodians, and their current, highly reputable, yet self-centred rules of life and ways of thought and action.

II. And in the rule of life and service to Himself, and, on His behalf, to humanity, there is the same avoidance of all party formulas and party definitions. He strikes home to the very heart of humanity from the Heart of Divinity. ‘Preach the Gospel’ to every creature we might almost say to ‘all creation’.

In each parable we hear a voice behind the voice, a mystic note within the music, that attracts without violence and subdues without force, until we find our own souls answering. We, too, perceive, like the Pharisees, that ‘He has spoken this parable against ourselves’.

III. And each time the voice comes home to conscience as a final issue, as an eternal principle. The Divine Master, the consummate Teacher, the Good Physician, the Eternal Wisdom of God has cut clean through our sophistries, swept aside our partialities, torn off the soothing poultice of self-flattery and opened the wound itself, the wound of pride, and let out the deadly matter, and pours in the wine of penitential grace and the healing unction of His forgiveness; and brings us by His own transporting grace to the House of Rest, where He leaves us His own Incarnate life and the virtue of that life, in sacramental, healing, strengthening, perfecting power; and yet so greatly does He respect our moral freedom that this glory of a perfect life only results so far as we co-operate in faith and effort. The Pharisees, mask-wearers as all are tempted to be recognizing the Voice of Eternal Truth, avoided it; perceiving the final issue laid at their feet, yet spurned it, and ‘left Him and went their way’ into the outer darkness.

Bishop Gaul, The Church Family Newspaper, 18 September, 1908, p. 795.

Mar 12:17

Christ answered the Herodians according to their condition. ‘Show me the tribute-money,’ said He and one took a penny out of his pocket if you use money which has the image of Csar upon it, and which he has made current and valuable that is, if you are men of the state, and gladly enjoy the advantages of Csar’s government, then pay him back some of his own when he demands it. ‘Render therefore to Csar that which is Csar’s, and to God those things which are God’s’ leaving them no wiser than before as to which was which, for they did not wish to know.

Thoreau on Civil Disobedience.

References. XII. 17. S. King, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lxiii. 1903, p. 359. G. D. Hooper, ibid. vol. xl. 1891, p. 358. XII. 18-27. J. Denney, ibid. vol. xlvi. 1894, p. 365. XII. 21-31. (R.V.). J. Martin, ibid. vol. lii. 1897, p. 36.

Mar 12:25

See Mrs. Berry’s remarks in the forty-fourth chapter of The Ordeal of Richard Feverel.

References. XII. 26, 27. C. Gore, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xlix. 1896, p. 251. XII. 28. J. A. Bain, Questions Answered by Christ, p. 88. XII. 28-31. T. F. Lockyer, Inspirations of the Christian Life, p. 35.

Mar 12:30

Chaucer’s remarkably trustful and affectionate character appears in his familiar, yet innocent and reverent manner of speaking of his God. He comes into his thought without any false reverence, and with no more parade than the zephyr to his ear. If Nature is our mother, then God is our father. There is less love and simple practical trust in Shakespeare and Milton. How rarely in our English tongue do we find expressed any affection for God! Certainly, there is no sentiment so rare as the love of God. Herbert almost alone expresses it, ‘Ah, my dear God’.

Thoreau, A Week on the Concord, (Friday).

Mar 12:30

The queen (Caroline) had some higher intellectual interests, which to Walpole probably seemed as pure nonsense as they seemed to King George. She often tried to make him read Butler’s Analogy, but he told her that his religion was fixed, and that he had no desire either to change or to improve it.

Morley’s Walpole, p. 97.

While I was in that country, viz. of the Penpont district, I had advantage of converse with Mr. Murray, a learned and holy man; the meeting of which two in a character was not very frequent there.

Thomas Boston.

References. XII. 30. L. R. Rawnsley, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxxviii. 1890, p. 38. E. W. Attwood, Sermons for Clergy and Laity, p. 223. J. H. Thom, A Spiritual Faith, p. 99. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. iii. No. 162. XII. 30, 31. W. H. Murray, The Fruits of the Spirit, pp. 246, 257.

Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson

Not Far From the Kingdom

Mar 12:34

What became of this hopeful young lawyer I cannot tell. Whether he actually reached and entered the kingdom he was so near to, we are not informed.

I. He was ‘not far from the kingdom,’ because he had begun to think seriously on religion.

II. Because he had already begun to attach greater importance to the spirit than to the letter.

III. Because he was sincerely desirous of acting up to the measure of light which he possessed.

IV. Because he was amiable and virtuous. He was strictly moral, circumspect, and pure.

J. Thain Davidson, The City Youth, p. 267.

Not Far Off

Mar 12:34

The man to whom these words were addressed was a candid inquirer.

I. The Characteristics of those who are not far from the Kingdom.

1. They may possess considerable knowledge of Scripture.

2. They may make a candid confession of their belief.

3. They may have strong convictions of sin.

4. They may have a desire to amend their lives.

5. They may have partially reformed. They only need Repentance and Faith.

II. The Reasons why they do not Enter the Kingdom.

6. Difficulties in the way.

7. Advantages in a middle course.

8. Belief that they are Christians already.

9. Reluctance to observe the needful conditions.

III. The Inducements to Enter.

10. The blessedness of those who do.

11. The misery of those who do not.

F. J. Austin, Seeds and Saplings, p. 38.

References. XII. 34. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture St. Mark IX.-XVI. p. 148. C. Perren, Revival Sermons in Outline, p. 258. R. L. Drummond, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lxi. 1902, p. 85. W. L. Watkinson, ibid. vol. lxi. 1902, p. 259. H. Hensley Henson, ibid. vol. lxiii. 1903, p. 180. H. Montagu Butler, Harrow School Sermons (2nd Series), p. 63. J. S. Swan, Short Sermons, p. 213. ‘Plain Sermons’ by contributors to the Tracts for the Times, vol. v. p. 297. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxvi. No. 1517; vol. lii. No. 2989. XII. 37. A. B. Bruce, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxxvii. p. 42. P. M. Muir, ibid. vol. xliv. 1893, p. 107. J. H. Jellett, The Elder Son, p. 141. Mark Guy Pearse, Jesus Christ and the People, p. 57.

Casting Into the Treasury

Mar 12:41

Take the incident of this Gospel story. May it not suggest to us a special fact of immense significance not apparent on the surface of things? That Temple court, those thirteen brazen chests, that procession of contributors, each with his special offering may they not represent to us, in idea at least, a picture or parable of what is going on perpetually in the drama of human life, and at the same time bring before us a vision of the unseen, unheard judgment of Christ upon the works and ways of men?

I. Every single life is in itself an offertory, a contribution, made to the great sum of human influences and examples. Some faint resemblance to this idea of a common treasury to which all in their several ways contribute may be seen in the demands and expectations of men and women when united in social groups. The rich and powerful are welcome as the ‘benefactors’ of society, and society rewards them with its smiles. Modest and humble goodness may pass by with its slender offering, rich only in the coin of love and self-sacrifice, but such coinage has no appreciable value in the eyes of the ‘children of this world’.

II. As a contrast, let us look at the spirit in which our Lord appraised the two types of character that passed before Him in the Temple court, and notice which of the two appeared to Him to be the pure gold and which the showy tinsel.

1. First, we cannot fail to see that the test applied by Christ to human conduct, here as always, was a spiritual test. In the matter of giving He pronounced that the vital question is not how much you give, but what element of sacrifice enters into your gift. Love and self-surrender are the core of practical Christianity. ‘My son, give Me thy heart,’ is the sum and substance of all the commandments. In God’s sight he who does not give himself as the best part of his offering, with no eye to any future recompense, gives what has no spiritual value.

2. Another point is that there may be more spiritual nobleness, more of the morally sublime, in some obscure, hidden life that hardly anyone notices than in many of the conspicuous acts of distinguished persons which are recorded in the pages of history. We are reminded by our Lord’s praise of the poor widow that obscurity is a condition, sometimes the necessary condition, of much of the most self-denying work that is done in the world.

III. Our own experience may teach the lesson that it is not often to the wealthy, the powerful, or the brilliant that we owe the deepest gratitude for timely aid, generous sympathy, or ennobling influence.

It should never be forgotten that the true givers, the true helpers of mankind, are those whose efforts cost them much labour and suffering, and who, in seeking the good of others, purchase it with their own heart’s blood. Only in those who cast into life’s treasury their love and sympathy, the most precious of offerings, charged with sore travail of soul and much inward pain, does Christ recognize the image and likeness of His own perfect sacrifice of Himself.

J. W. Shepard, Light and Life, p. 192.

References. XII. 41-44. C. H. Parkhurst, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lxiv. 1903, p. 179. T. Martin, ibid. vol. box. 1906, p. 397. John McNeill, Regent Square Pulpit, vol. ii. p. 65. S. Martin, Rain Upon the Mown Grass, p. 380. Lynch, Three Months’ Ministry, p. 118.

Mar 12:42

In ‘the book of the Three Maiden Sisters’ ( Professor at the Breakfast Table, x.), Oliver Wendell Holmes tells of a poor widow who, ‘fighting hard to feed and clothe and educate her children, had not forgotten the poorer ancient maidens,’ sending the three spinsters ‘a fractional pudding from her own table. I remembered it the other day as I stood by the place of rest, and I felt sure that it was remembered elsewhere. I know there are prettier words than pudding, but I can’t help it the pudding went upon the record, I feel sure, with the mite which was cast into the treasury by that other poor widow whose deed the world shall remember for ever.’

References. XII. 43. M. Guy Pearse, Jesus Christ and the People, p. 238. XII. 43, 44. R. Collyer, Where the Light Dwelleth, p. 122. E. L. Hull, Sermons Preached at King’s Lynn (3rd Series), p. 213. XIII. W. H. Bennett, The Life of Christ According to St. Mark, p. 208.

Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson

Jesus Christ’s Methods of Teaching

Mar 12

Instead of telling men their faults in so many words, Jesus Christ often set forth a parable which avoided personality, and yet vividly represented the features which he wished to correct or condemn; not only so, he drew men into a condemnation of themselves by showing their own conduct at such a distance as brought a new light upon it. The parable before us is a case in point. The people having heard the parable, “knew that he had spoken it against them.” There is a moral interpreter in every man’s heart.

In this parable we have

(1) A striking way of teaching the highest truths. For the moment Jesus Christ turns aside from what is distinctively religious, and assumes a case which might occur in ordinary life. Here are men in certain business relations: they act in such and such a manner: what do you think of their conduct under such circumstances? Jesus thus begins on common ground. There is not a word of what is ordinarily known as religion in his statement, and yet his inferences are directed to the highest spiritual ends. This is a striking way of teaching truth. Begin with men on their own ground; force them to apply their own conclusions; show them that they must either accept Christianity or give the lie to their own reason. Thus: Men complain that without faith it is impossible to please God; but why should they so complain when, as a matter of fact, it is just as impossible to please themselves without faith? Or again: Men say, why does not God give us all we need without our having to pray? when they act daily on this very principle of prayer in relation to their own children! So throughout the whole scheme: if men would but narrowly look into their own way of doing things, they would find in the human a germ of the divine. Christianity completes and glorifies human reason, and never impairs or dishonours it This striking way of teaching the highest truths is open to all Christian teachers. They must study human nature, and show men the full meaning of the partial moralities which are too often mistaken for perfect righteousness.

(2) A vindication of the simple justice of God’s claim upon mankind. Look at the reasonableness of the case as shown in the figure of the vineyard. The vineyard belonged to the man; he did all that was necessary for its protection and cultivation; and at the season he sent for the fruit. On these simple lines God finds foundation enough for his claim upon the homage and love of the world. (1) Here is proprietorship: “All souls are mine.” (2) Here is culture: “What more could I have done for my vineyard that I have not done?” “He maketh his sun to rise,” etc. (3) Here is reasonable expectation: “At the season he sent to the husbandmen a servant, that he might receive from the husbandmen of the fruit of the vineyard.” This is God’s case in relation to ourselves. We cannot get out of it. We are imprisoned by our own reason, and the measure of our sanity is the standard of our obligation.

(3) A gracious view of malignant behaviour. The owner of the vineyard did not take vengeance at first. He gave the husbandmen the benefit of every doubt. The servant might have acted unwisely, so he sent another; the second might have brought himself under just condemnation, so he sent a third; and so on until the bitter end. God is slow to anger. Judgment is his strange work. Is he quick to mark our iniquities, and eager to bring down upon us his terrible sword? But see how bad behaviour encourages and strengthens itself in wickedness! The husbandmen beat the first, they wounded the second, they killed the third! Vice emboldens itself quickly. The youth who laughs at an oath to-day will himself blaspheme openly tomorrow. There is a lesson here to those who neglect sermons, or undervalue opportunities, or treat slightingly all good advice. See the culmination! The men who began by beating a servant ended by killing the Son! This is not exceptional. It is the natural and necessary course of sin.

(4) An assurance of just vengeance upon all bad men. The Lord of the vineyard will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others. According to the account given by Matthew, the men who heard the parable pronounced the judgment themselves. When Christ asked what the Lord of the vineyard would do, the people answered, “He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him their fruits in their seasons.” This is a solemn fact, viz., that men will judge themselves, and pronounce the heavenly vengeance just. The wicked will say Amen to their own condemnation! In the long run the sense of justice that is in every man will assert itself, and acknowledge the righteousness of God.

13. And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in his words.

14. And when they were come, they say unto him, Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man: for thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute to Csar, or not?

15. Shall we give, or shall we not give? But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye me? bring me a penny, that I may see it.

16. And they brought it. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? And they said unto him, Csar’s.

17. And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Csar the things that are Csar’s, and to God the things that are God’s. And they marvelled at him.

(1) Flattery missing its aim. Sin of all kinds always misses its aim; its apparent successes are all momentary and unsatisfactory. Sincerity can see through flattery. When a man is right in his own heart the words of other men cannot do him any harm. Flattery is poison to the weak, but it has no effect upon the strong. (2) Patriotism directed by righteousness. “Render to Csar the things that are Csar’s.” Be honest. Whenever there is a claim honestly made it must be honestly met. (3) The twofold duty of man pointed out: to Csar, to God. He who fulfils his obligations to God fulfils them also of necessity to man. The greater includes the less. Religion does not hold political obligations in contempt. Prayer and taxation must go together so long as we are citizens and subjects as well as saints. (4) Insincerity turned into reality. “And they marvelled at him.” There was no pretence about this wonder. The answer stunned the flatterers, and brought to their cheeks every drop of real blood that was in them. Who can stun like the Almighty!

18. Then come unto him the Sadducees which say there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying,

19. 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 unto his brother.

20. Now there were seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed.

21. And the second took her, and died, neither left he any seed: and the third likewise.

22. And the seven had her, and left no seed: last of all the woman died also.

23. In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife.

24. And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the Scriptures, neither the power of God?

25. 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.

26. And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?

27. He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.

This is the case of men who spend their time in getting up little neat arguments. They think their cases complete. They feel quite sure that such instances must carry conviction to every mind. Such men, too, are fond of the reductio ad absurdum , their logical recreations. It amuses them. They chuckle hilariously over the feats of their nimble wit. Look what a case the Sadducees had! A woman had seven husbands on earth, which of them will she choose as her one husband in the next world; and are the remaining six men to have no wives hereafter? “Ha! ha!” said they, “how ridiculous he must look when we put such a case to him! Come, we have caught him now, and the public shall see how we pluck his stolen feathers.” Away they went. On the road they stopped a moment here and there that they might laugh just once more by way of anticipation. The man who had undertaken to state the case declared that he could not keep his gravity, the thing was so infinitely amusing, and so dazzlingly self-evident as an argument. One woman: seven husbands: resurrection: all the seven putting in a claim: the woman bewildered and unable to make a choice: ha! ha! The man who reported the case was regarded as having found a pearl beyond price. Lucky dog! it had fallen to his lot to puncture the Christian balloon. So away they went, merry enough, and sure enough of an easy and brilliant victory. They stated the case. The Saviour was not agitated. As soon as they ceased he said to them, in effect, “You fools, in the resurrection there is no marriage: unities are established on a new basis: you are wrong in your fundamental position: go home and learn common-sense before you put any more riddles to a Christian teacher.” Jesus Christ will show that all objectors are fundamentally wrong. They have no ground to stand upon. Their cases are all bubble-like. The wittiest objector will find that his blade has no handle. Every objector forgets the one thing which makes all the difference between genius and insanity.

The reference which Jesus Christ made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, is very suggestive. He showed the Sadducees that if they gave up belief in the spiritual state, they must also give up belief in God himself; forasmuch as God called himself the God of Abraham, who had long been absent from earth, so God was the God of the living. It is even so. We cannot surrender one part of Christ’s teaching without surrendering the whole. If we. break one commandment we break all. If we subtract we destroy. Tender is the life of Truth! And yet how gentle its corrections, “ye do greatly err.” Solemn, even to sadness, are some of the rebukes of the Saviour.

28. And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?

29. And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

30. And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

31. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

32. And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:

33. 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 neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.

34. And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And no man after that durst ask him any question.

This incident shows that indirect influence may be exerted by Christian teaching. Even if the scribe had not proposed this inquiry he would have received advantage from the answer which Jesus Christ returned to the Sadducees. He was evidently impressed with the wisdom, self-control, and high spiritual claims of Jesus Christ. Ministers should take a lesson from this. Besides the persons who are immediately interested in our ministry, there are others who are quietly and almost under concealment looking on, and forming their opinion of our temper and competence. We know not where the influence of a sermon may penetrate. Our preaching should always be such as to encourage serious listeners to ask such questions as may be secretly engaging their thoughts. The scribe was evidently clearer-minded and more earnest than either the Herodians or the Sadducees. The Herodians put a political question, the Sadducees proposed a speculative question; but the scribe made a profound and spiritual inquiry, “Which is the first commandment of all?” This is the kind of question which is worthy of the most anxious consideration. Life should not be spent in paltry disputes about tribute money, or in studying questions of barren speculation, but in finding out the principles which are at the very centre of things and shall abide for ever.

Jesus Christ answered the scribe in the scribe’s own spirit a spirit of the deepest solemnity and veneration. The words of the commandments as pronounced by Jesus Christ are simply majestic. Without exposition, paraphrase, or enlargement, Jesus Christ repeated the words of eternal life. There is a scriptural answer to every great spiritual question. Ho who returns answers in the words of Scripture will most satisfy the desire of every earnest heart. Jesus attempted no philosophical exposition of law, obligation, judgment, or any related subject; he pronounced the commandments with the authority of the Lawgiver. Man needs two commandments because his life has two aspects. The one aspect is upwards towards God, the other aspect is lateral towards society. Both commandments have a common root, viz., love. True love is a compound feeling. It is more than mere admiration, fancy, prejudice, or esteem based upon superficial qualities and attractions. It comprises the assent of the judgment, the approbation of the conscience, and the fervent sanction of the best feelings. We may reverence God without loving him. For our neighbour we may have admiration without affection. We are to try ourselves by the severity and comprehensiveness of the divine requirement.

The answer which the scribe returned to Jesus Christ shows that in the heart of man there is a voice which confirms the claim of God. “Well, Master, thou hast said the truth.” We should speak so as to compel those who hear us to acknowledge that our word is true. We can do this by our tone as well as by our reasoning. The tone of the ministry is quite as important as its argument. A hard, dry, dogmatic method of stating the truth will repel: a solemn, sympathetic, tender tone will constrain and persuade. We lose half our power as ministers of Christ if we neglect to appeal to the spirit of man as itself the best witness of God. “There is a spirit in man, and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth him understanding.” It is the highest prerogative of man to be able to distinguish the false from the true, and to discover in the moral chaos of society the line of rectitude and order. Let ministers appeal to that prerogative, and they will put many to silence who are too obstinate to be convinced.

Jesus Christ recognises every particle of good that is in a man. He told the scribe that he was not far from the kingdom of God. Jesus Christ recognised good directions and tendencies, as well as successful results. We should tell men when they are setting themselves upon a right course, even though they may have gone but a few steps upon it. Encouragement is as food to the soul. Do not let us be afraid of telling any man that we see some good in him. Point it out rather, and urge him to persevere in the holy way, walking by the same rule, and minding the same thing. Men may be so told of their excellences as to abash and humble them, as well as so told as to encourage self-exaggeration. The scribe was a type of men who require a word of encouragement. They have great questions to ask, and already in their own hearts there is an answer to such questions, but they wish that answer to be pronounced by some outward authority that may come back upon themselves as a revelation and an appeal. There is much in our own hearts which we would be glad to hear other people say, for we could then rest upon it with a redoubled sense of security.

35. And Jesus answered, and said, while he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that Christ is the Son of David?

36. For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.

37. David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son? And the common people heard him gladly.

This gives us some insight into one of Jesus Christ’s methods of teaching. He raised great questions for discussion. He did not always stop to explain the difficulties which he suggested, but rather left them to create a healthful excitement in the minds of his hearers. Ministers are often urged to be simple in their preaching, and there is undoubted wisdom in the exhortation; at the same time we ought to take license from the example of Jesus Christ to propound inquiries, and suggest courses of thinking, which seem to lie somewhat afield from the line of simple gospel preaching. Every mind is the better for having some great theological question constantly before it. A sense of awe comes over the traveller when he enters the primeval forest, stands within the shadow of inaccessible heights, or feels his loneliness in the midst of the great sea: there is something analogous to this in some departments of theological inquiry, we are perplexed, awed, overwhelmed; and in many a scene we are constrained to exclaim, “How dreadful is this place!” Jesus Christ raised great scriptural questions. He went back to Moses, the prophets, the Psalms, and found in the whole range of inspired statement bases on which to ground inquiries relating to his own person and mediation. He found himself everywhere. How is it that some of us see so little of him in the great sanctuary of his own revelation?

Notwithstanding these great problems, “the common people heard him gladly.” The common people know a great deal by sympathy, which they do not receive through the medium of their understanding. It is unwise to suppose that every word has to be broken up into simple meanings for the sake of the common people. They can read the countenance, they can understand the tone, they can interpret all the feeling which pervades Christian discourse; and whilst three parts of the statement may be perfectly simple in an intellectual point of view, they can enter with deep appreciation into those portions which are far-reaching and sublime.

38. And he said unto them in his doctrine, Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the marketplaces,

39. And the chief seats in the synagogues, and the uppermost rooms at feasts:

40. Which devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive greater damnation.

The Saviour here returns to the great practical line of his ministry. He who had just proposed a solemn theological inquiry, utters a word of caution regarding some of the men who were immediately around him. Every honest minister is called upon to point out the false men and the false influences which are in society. This is a part of our ministry in which many of us fail. Who is courageous enough to lay his hand upon the vices which are immediately before him, presented in some of the members of his own congregation, and to condemn them specifically and vehemently? No word is hard which is true. To call a man a hypocrite because he has in some way disappointed or offended us is mere spite; but to call him a hypocrite when we know that such a term is deserved by his conduct is not to speak severely. We find in the Scriptures such words as vipers, hypocrites, whited walls, liars; and these words have no harshness in them: employed in passion or in ill-nature they would recoil upon the speaker, and constitute a charge against his judgment and honour; but employed righteously they justify themselves, and do their proper work in human speech. No man used hard words, commonly so-called, so specifically and tellingly as Jesus Christ; the danger is, that with less wisdom and less authority some of his followers may abuse the holiness of his example. Jesus Christ condemned persons as well as actions. There is a shallow policy which says, Condemn the sin, but let the sinner alone: this was not Jesus Christ’s method; he pointed out the sinner, and openly set upon him the mark of his righteous disapprobation. Long clothing, salutations in the marketplaces, chief seats in the synagogues, uppermost rooms at feasts, did not hide from Jesus Christ the fact that men bearing sacred names were devouring widows’ houses, and for a pretence making long prayers. So terrible in penetration and judgment is the word and gospel of God I

41. And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much.

42. And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.

43. And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in than all they which have cast into the treasury:

44. For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.

A story without an equal in the whole history of human beneficence. It abounds in practical points. Take a few of them:

(1) There is a treasury in the Church. Treasury may stand for all means of doing good: supporting the ministry; spreading the gospel; teaching the ignorant; visiting the sick, etc. Into this treasury some may cast money, some time, some influence, others may cast the whole of these. The treasury, taken in this large sense, is one severe test of the piety and consecration of the Church. The treasury is not spoken of here as if it were an exceptional institution, or brought into occasional use. It was a permanent fact. It was part of temple-worship. So it must ever be. When the Church ceases to give it will cease to live.

(2) Jesus Christ himself presides over the treasury. He did so, virtually, in this case. This fact redeems the treasury from all sordid and vulgar associations. What we give we give not to this man or to that, but to Jesus Christ himself. This consideration turns the act of giving into a holy service. When a shilling is given to a poor man it is given to Jesus Christ; when money is given to any Christian object it is handed to the Saviour himself. Work from any lower action, and giving will become a vexation; work from this high level, and it will become a sacrifice of joy. Jesus Christ is the Treasurer of the Church. Every farthing, every cup of cold water, every gentle service, he puts down in his book. All human officers are but sub-treasurers and sub-secretaries: the Saviour holds everything in his own hand.

(3) To this treasury men are to give as God has prospered them. Uniform rates of gift are unnatural, unreasonable, and unjust. It is scandalous that the great merchant and his clerk should be asked to give the same amount to Christian service. Pew-rents, as defining the final line of giving, ought not to be known in the church. They may be tolerated as bearing upon certain fixed expenses, but as a channel of love and gratitude they are infinitely worse than ridiculous. Love is the only sufficient law of giving. What has God done for us? What have we benefited from his word, his providences, his manifold ministries? These questions will settle the measure of our gifts to the consecrated treasury.

(4) Jesus Christ pronounces judgment upon the gifts of men. He knew what the rich had given; he knew what the widow gave; he knew how much was left behind in the hands of the rich, and he knew that the widow had parted with her whole living. Our judgment, then, is with God. Mutual criticism loses all sting when we bring ourselves immediately to the divine bar. Nothing that we have ever done shall be forgotten! “God is not unrighteous to forget our work of faith and labour of love.” The poor will not be lost sight of in the judgment. What if they who gave most in quantity gave least in quality?

Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker

XVII

THREE QUESTIONS AND CHRIST’S ANSWERS

Harmony, pages 147-154 and Mat 21:23-22:33 ; Mar 11:27-12:27 ; Luk 20:1-40

This section commences on page 147 of the Harmony, near the bottom. Before its special exposition let us consider several introductory thoughts:

First, It is a part of a great day in the life of our Lord. We have already noted one great day’s work in Galilee, and a little later we considered another great day, and this one makes the third. The transactions of this one twenty-four hour day covers everything from page 146 to page 172 of the Harmony. If we reckoned according to the Jewish method of days, from sunset to sunset, we would have to stop at page 168.

To obtain some general idea of the tremendous work of this day we must group its events:

Jesus walked from Bethany to the Temple two miles.

On the way he gave the lesson concerning the withering of the fig tree.

On arriving at the Temple he began walking about and teaching. Here the Sanhedrin pressed on him this question of authority: “What sort of authority have you for doing these things and from whom did you get it?” Their inquiry looks to the nature of his authority and its author. To that question he makes an elaborate reply. Then commences the series of questions resulting from a conspiracy on the part of his several enemies with a view to ensnare him or tangle him in his talk in one way or another that would make him odious either to the authorities or to some part of the people. The object of the second question is to put him either in opposition to Herod and Rome, and thus make him amenable to the civil authority, or to the people, and thus destroy his popularity. This was a question concerning the tribute money. Then comes a question concerning the resurrection, the answer to which they hoped would array him against either the Sadducees or the Pharisees. This was followed by a question as to the kind of commandment that should be considered greatest. The form of this question resulted from a conference among themselves, and they selected a lawyer to propound it. To all of these questions he gave the most marvelous replies, demonstrating his supreme wisdom and rendering them dumb. Then follows his last public discourse, in which he makes a terrible indictment against the scribes and Pharisees, denounces an awful penalty upon the Jewish nation, but holds out a glorious future hope.

Then follows his lesson on giving suggested by the widow’s contribution to the treasury of the Temple. Then, after he left the Temple and got as far as Mount Olivet going to Bethany, came his great discourse concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and his final advent in response to the questions of his disciples. This great discourse is recorded in Matthew 24-25; Mar 13 ; Luk 21 .

Following this comes a lesson concerning his death nearly at hand. In the meantime a meeting of the Sanhedrin is held concerning the way to put him to death. We have a thrilling account of a feast given in his honor when he arrives at Bethany, at which he is anointed by Mary, and where he delivered a great lesson concerning that anointing. Following this anointing Judas returns to Jerusalem and offers for a price to betray him to the Pharisees. All of these events thus grouped happened in one day. The strain upon both his physical and mental resources must have been very great.

Second, The next introductory thought lies in the obvious fact that here it is Bethany versus Jerusalem, an obscure village against the Holy City. His headquarters are at Bethany and every morning he goes into the city and teaches in the Temple, and every afternoon late he goes back to Bethany. The whole narrative here is very lively.

Third, We cannot fail to see the steps of a triple development. The malice of his enemies ripens rapidly. We see also the development in the clearness of Christ’s exposure of their murderous attempt. We see the rapid development in the spiritual downfall of Judas Iscariot and how it culminated.

Commencing then on page 147 of the Harmony, in the text of Mat 21:23-22:14 , Mar 11:27-12:12 , and Luk 20:1-19 , let us consider in detail such of the events of this great day, as come within this discussion. We see him walking and teaching in the Temple. One who is familiar with Greek history may recall how Aristotle was accustomed to teach in the same manner, walking about with his disciples under the colonnades of certain buildings; hence the name, “peripatetic philosophy.” He may also recall from Greek history the method of Socrates, who taught by asking and answering questions, and the scene of Paul at the marketplace in Athens.

FIRST QUESTION The scribes and Pharisees commenced the catechism with this twofold question: “By what sort of authority do you teach and do these things and who gave it to you?” They were accustomed to give authority to the rabbis before they taught. No man could expect to be heard in teaching who could not show the authority by which he taught. Their questions, however, had already been answered by our Lord, as appears from Joh 12:44-50 . I will quote:

And Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. And he that beholdeth me beholdeth him that sent me. I come a light into the world that whosoever believeth on me may not abide in the darkness. And if any man hear my sayings, and keep them not, I judge him not; for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my sayings, bath one that judgeth him: the word that I spake, the same shall judge him in the last day. For I spake not from myself, but the Father that sent me, he hath given me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life eternal; the things therefore which I speak, even as the Father hath said unto me, so I speak.

Here very plainly and explicitly he has given a reply to that question as to the sort of authority under which he acted and the author of that authority. He had divine authority for all he said and did. They knew well enough what he had taught concerning his being sent of the Father, and there was no need to propound that question this time, but let us see how he replies now.

He replies by a counter question. This was an acceptable method of rejoinder by both Pharisee and Greek philosophers: “I also will ask you a question; and tell me the baptism of John, was it from heaven, or from men?” After consideration they replied that they did not know. Their answer was insincere, for in their communing they had said, “If we say that John’s baptism is from heaven, then he will say, Why did not ye believe him when he testified of me and baptized me as the Messiah and pointed to me, saying, Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world!” Hence to answer that the baptism of John was from heaven would be to answer the question that they had just propounded to him. On the other hand, if they had answered that it was from men, then the people would rise up against them, for the people believed that John was a prophet, and here they would be defeated in the object that they had in view, viz., to destroy his popularity with the people. As the object of their questioning was to break his power with the people so that they could arrest him safely, we can readily see the dilemma in which he placed them by his counter question. So they had to stand there dumb before the people. To complete their discomfiture he then goes on to show that John was sent from heaven and that the people who believed in John were wiser than these religious teachers propounding questions to him: “The publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God ahead of you. They justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John, and you, when you saw it, repented not yourselves that you might believe.” In this way he made it plain that it was not a desire upon their part to know his authority) but their question was one of guile and malice. Nor is he yet through with them upon this question of authority. He continues to press home upon them their own wickedness by a parable. A man had two sons. To the first he said, “Son, go along and work to-day in the vineyard,” and he answered and said, “I will not,” but afterward he repented and went. He said also to the other son, “Son, go and work in the vineyard,” and he replied, “I will, sir,” but went not. Having stated this parable he forces them to say which was the obedient son, the one who first said, “I will not” and afterwards obeyed, or the one who said, “I will,” and did not obey. Having extorted from them the reply that the first was the obedient son, he then applied his lesson. Here are two classes of people: First, these publicans and harlots refused to obey God at first, going into open wickedness and wrong, then later repented and obeyed God and he accepted them. The other class, consisting of the scribes and Pharisees, are all the time saying, “I will, I will,” but their professions are empty; they never obey.

He now drives them like a wolf into a final corner by another parable the parable of the wicked husbandman. His object is to utterly expose the malice underlying all their opposition to him. They could not misunderstand the application of this parable. It is a perfect arraignment of the Jewish nation and of its leaders. Following the old time Jewish imagery he tells of a vineyard as one of the prophets hath said, “I brought a vine out of Egypt, and planted it and watered it and cultivated it, and what more could I do to my vineyard than I have done?” Now these husbandmen who had charge of that vineyard were refusing to its owner its land dues. The prophets who had been sent unto them were maltreated, their message rejected, some of them were killed, some sawn asunder, some stoned. Then at last the heir comes and they take counsel to kill him in order to make permanent their authority over the vineyard. His purpose is to show that the most inveterate unbelief, hardness of heart, and murderous malice are evinced by these scribes rind Pharisees. From that day until the present the unbelieving Jews have sought to evade the point of our Lord’s great indictment, that they have murdered the Prince of Glory, their own Messiah.

Many years ago, when I was a young pastor, a Jewish rabbi came to Waco and offered to prove from the Gospels themselves that the Jews were not guilty of the death of Christ; that he was punished according to the forms of the Jewish law. And he offered to prove this if any church in the city would offer him their pulpit. I accepted on condition that I be allowed to reply to him, and he would get his people to hear my reply, as I would get my people to hear his discussion. The arrangements were made and when he delivered his address he followed very closely an account of the trial of Jesus Christ given by Mr. Joseph Salvador, a physician and learned Jew, who had published at Paris a work entitled A History of the Institution of Moses and the Jewish People. In this history there is a chapter on the administration of justice. Then follows an application of the principles set forth in that chapter to the most memorable trial in history that of Jesus Christ. Doubtless this rabbi supposed that nobody in Waco had ever heard of that book. When I began my reply the following night I recited the facts concerning Mr. Salvador’s book and that this rabbi’s speech was merely a series of quotations from that book, and then I gave the reply to Mr. Salvador’s book by a distinguished French lawyer, Mr. Dupin. Mr. Dupin, with the utmost courtesy and respect, grinds to fine powder Mr. Salvador’s argument. I then told the audience that they would find both Mr. Salvador’s argument, which was the same as that to which the audience had listened, and Mr. Dupin’s reply in an appendix to Greenleaf’s Testimony of the Evangelists.

I may refer also to a discussion by Mayor Gaynor of New York, and I mention the most exhaustive discussion by a great lawyer: The Trial of Jesus from a Lawyer’s Standpoint two volumes, by v. M. Chandler of the New York Bar. While fully agreeing with Mr. Chandler in his broad sympathies with all persecuted Jews, by any country” or religion, I utterly dissent from him on one capital point which is also both a legal and a historical one, my own conviction being that nations as well as individuals are responsible for their actions and the actions of their leaders, and more so in this case than in any other in history. There can be no serious question here. Jesus of Nazareth was pursued to death murderous death contrary to the forms of the Jewish law. This is exactly our Lord’s indictment, and in this argument of the wicked husbandman he puts the final point upon this indictment, forces these scribes and Pharisees to answer this question: “When, therefore, the Lord of the vineyard shall come, what will he do unto these husbandmen?” And they are compelled to answer: “He will miserably destroy these miserable men, and will let out the vineyard unto other husbandmen, who shall render him the fruits in their season.”

Our Lord seeks to prepare all of his audience for this immense transition, the taking away of the kingdom of God from the Jews and the giving of that kingdom to the Gentiles. He puts the capstone upon his application by a citation from the prophets, “The stone which the builders rejected, the same was made the head of the corner.” Isaiah had said, “Behold, I lay for a foundation, a stone, a tried stone, a precious cornerstone.” Now our Lord’s charge is that this stone, which God himself had prepared for the foundation, they rejected, and then he announces their doom: “Whoever stumbles on that stone, whoever through unbelief in this life, rejects Christ, shall be broken. But upon whom that stone shall fall, he shall be ground to powder.”

He follows up this victory by another parable, the parable of the marriage feast. We have already seen Luke’s account of a similar parable, and yet in some things dissimilar: The parable of the gospel feast. The distinction between the two is very important. A student should put them side by side. The gospel feast is at the beginning, illustrating the preaching of the gospel to the Jews. The marriage feast presents not the beginning, but the culmination. While the Jews counted a betrothal as binding as marriage, yet there was a distinction between the betrothal and the consummation of the marriage. The object of the gospel feast is to betroth Christ. The object of the marriage feast is to show the consummation of that betrothal. Paul says, “I have espoused you as a chaste virgin unto Christ.” Everybody is invited under the terms of this gospel feast to be betrothed to Christ, but in this marriage feast the rejection is final, and as a penalty the king himself sends his armies and destroys the murderers and burns their city. Such is the fate of Jerusalem. Already the shadow of the coming armies of Titus on the nation appears. In less than forty years from the time that Jesus speaks this parable, Titus takes Jerusalem, since which time they have had no home, no Temple, and no national government.

This argument clearly shows that on the rejection of the Jews the heralds of the cross are to go to the highways and the hedges. There is one special incident in the parable a man who outwardly accepts the invitation to the wedding feast, but attends without a wedding garment is cast into the outer darkness. He represents the formal professor of religion; the one who accepts God’s invitation so far as externals are concerned, but who makes no inward preparation. Thus by parable after parable Christ makes an end to his answer to their first question, “By what sort of authority do you teach and who gives it?”

SECOND QUESTION The conspiracy underlying the second question and the motive prompting it is thus expressed by Luk 20:20 : “And they watched him, and sent forth spies, who feigned themselves to be righteous, that they might take hold of his speech, so as to deliver him up to the rule and to the authority of the governor.” There were two political parties. One was called the Herodians, that is, those who accepted the Roman government and its administration through Herod. The Sadducees belonged to this party. The Pharisees constituted the bulk of the other party. Their object was to free their nation from any semblance of dependence upon Rome. The issue between these parties was very sharp. Everywhere there was alignment for one or the other. One who committed himself to the Herodians deprived himself of favor with what is called the patriotic party led by the Pharisees, and one who openly aligned himself with them secured the enmity of the ruling party. Led by malice they feigned great love for Jesus and respect for his teaching and brought him a question concerning the poll tax or tribute money. With flattering words they thus introduce it: “Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, and carest not for any one: for thou regardest not the person of men. Tell us, therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar or not?” If he had answered, “Yes,” this would have turned the people against him. If he had said, “No,” this would have made him obnoxious to the authorities and would have furnished them the ground for preferring a charge of treason. It is a well laid plot. The question was a puzzling one to most of the Jewish people. They were a holy nation enslaved to a heathen nation. Could they as God’s own people pay this poll tax? History tells us that not long after Christ was crucified a rebellion took place on this very subject. A man named Judas in Galilee raised an insurrection, and Barabbas, about whom we will learn later, was not so much a common robber and murderer as he was a representative of this patriotic idea of freeing the nation from the iniquitous government of Rome. Our Lord does not hesitate to make a reply to their question. He passes no judgment on the righteousness of the Roman rule, but he recognizes the fact that they are the rulers of Judea. His mission is not a political one, but a spiritual one. He asks for the tribute money. Holding it in his hand he says, “Whose is this image and superscription?” They answer, “Caesar’s.” He replies, “Render, therefore, unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.”

This reply shows that he would not head a political faction; that his kingdom was not of this world; that while he did not justify the Roman government, he recognized the fact that they were the rulers of the nation and he made it the occasion of laying down a principle of worldwide application by his people. Paul repeats it later, “Render tribute to whom tribute is due.” Peter repeats it, “Honor the king,” not that he expresses a preference for a monarchial form of government over a democratic, but that it is not the object of the Christian religion primarily to teach forms of human government, but to save men; to deal with the spiritual condition of the people. The answer of our Lord to this second question, has, throughout all history, been the guiding principle of his people.

THIRD QUESTION The Sadducees came to the front with a question that has hitherto puzzled their adversaries. They do not believe in the immortality of the soul. They are materialists. They think when a man dies that is the last of him, and, of course, they do not believe in the resurrection of the body. The Pharisees believe in the immortality of the soul and in the resurrection of the body. The Sadducees present what they consider an unanswerable question, citing a supposititious case of a man dying without an heir and under the Mosaic law his brother taking his place as a husband of the widow, and that brother dying without an heir, and so on, until she had been the wife of seven brothers. Then she dies. Now, in the resurrection which one of the seven will be her husband? Of course, they did not believe that there would be any resurrection, but as the Pharisees were accustomed to teach that in the next world there would be marriages, and that earthly relations would be continued, to them the question was a puzzle. The Mohammedans also teach the continuance of sexual relations in the world to come: They hold out as an incentive the luxuries of sexual pleasures of paradise. Of course, it was agreed between the Pharisees and the Sadducees that this question should be propounded to our Lord. If he should answer in favor of the Sadducees that would turn against him all the people who followed the teachings of the Pharisees. If he should answer in favor of the Pharisees then the Sadducees, who were Herodians, fewer in number, but occupying the most of the offices, would have had ground of accusation against Christ. The Sadducees were the party in power. The object of the question was to put him between the upper and the nether millstones. He completely vanquishes both of them by his teaching that in the next world there is no marriage nor giving in marriage. Those who attain the resurrection state are sexless, as are the angels, not that they will be angels. But the present physical conditions of this life will not be continued in the other world. He does not mean that man and wife living long together on earth may not rejoice with each other in heaven, remembering the lessons of time, but that the physical conditions of married life do not continue in the world to come. This answer both breaks the points of the question of the Sadducees and corrects the erroneous doctrine of the Pharisees concerning the conditions of the future life. No Pharisee with the views that he held could have met the difficulties of the question of the Sadducees. Our Lord now turns upon the Sadducees with a most crushing rejoinder. “You deny the resurrection of the body. You err upon two points: You neither know the scriptures nor the power of God.” He then proves from the Pentateuch the resurrection of the dead by the words of God to Moses: “I am the God of Abraham, and Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” He is not the God of dead people, but of living people. Abraham is dead only as to his body. He lives and is with God. This argument is from the greater to the lesser; if God be the Saviour of the soul of Abraham he will be the Saviour of his body, rescuing it from the grave. Some commentators have been puzzled to see the application of Christ’s answer to the resurrection of the body. But our Lord was wiser than commentators. His one citation destroys both errors of the Sadducees. They held that there is no immortality of the soul. He disproves that. They held that there is no resurrection of the body. He disproves that.

QUESTIONS

1. What are the three introductory thoughts to this chapter?

2. What is the greatest day’s work in the life of our Lord, and what two other very great days in his life?

3. Give a detailed outline of this great day’s work.

4. What are the parallels between the methods of Christ and Paul in their teaching and the methods of the Grecian philosophers?

5. With what double question did the scribes and Pharisees open the discussion with Christ in the Temple?

6. How had Jesus already answered these questions?

7. How did Christ answer them here and how did this answer place them in a dilemma?

8. Do you know any other people who have been puzzled to account for John’s baptism?

9. How does Christ complete their discomfiture?

10. How does he further press on them their own wickedness in a parable?

11. How does he drive them into a final corner by another parable?

12. Give an account of the controversy which occurred in Waco between a Jewish rabbi and the author.

13. Where may be found the substance of the rabbi’s speech and the reply?

14. What other discussion cited and commended and what one point from the prophets and what application?

15. What great purpose of Christ toward his audience, what citation of dissension?

16. How does he further show their doom in a parable?

17. What other parable similar and what points of contrast and distinction between the two?

18. What historical event clearly foreshadowed by this parable?

19. Who represented by the man that “had not on the wedding garment”?

20. What were the two political parties in the time of Christ, what did each stand for, how did one of these parties try to entangle Christ, and how did Christ in his reply, outwit them?

21. What does this reply show, what principle here enunciated by Christ and how recognized afterward by Paul and Peter?

22. What distinctive tenets of the Sadducees, how did they conspire with the Pharisees to entrap Christ, what dilemma in which they attempted to place him and how did he escape?

23. How does Christ prove the resurrection in this connection and what is the argument?

24. How does this citation disprove the two main tenets of the Sadducees and thus silence them?

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible

1 And he began to speak unto them by parables. A certain man planted a vineyard, and set an 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.

Ver. 1. A certain man planted, &c. ] See Trapp on “ Mat 21:33 “

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

1 12.] PARABLE OF THE VINEYARD LET OUT TO HUSBANDMEN. This parable is, for the most part, identical with that in Mat 21:33-46 , and Luk 20:9-19 . The number , and treatment of the servants sent, is enlarged on here; and in Mar 12:4 there occurs the singular word , which appears to be used by a solcism for , ‘ to wound in the head .’ Some have rendered it, ‘ they made short work with him ,’ which is the more usual sense of the word, but not probable here; for they did not kill him, but disgracefully used him.

I must not allow any opportunity to pass of directing attention to the sort of difference, in similarity, between these three reports, and observing that no origin of that difference is imaginable, except the gradual deflection of accounts from a common, or a parallel, source .

See notes on Matt. throughout.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Mar 12:1-12 . Parable of the wicked vinedressers (Mat 21:33-46 , Luk 20:9-19 ).

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

Mar 12:1 . : the plural may be used simply because there are more parables than one even in Mk., the main one and that of the Rejected Stone (Mar 12:10-11 ), but it is more probably generic = in parabolic style (Meyer, Schanz, Holtz., H. C.). Jesus resumed ( ) this style because the circumstances called forth the parabolic mood, that of one “whose heart is chilled, and whose spirit is saddened by a sense of loneliness, and who, retiring within himself, by a process of reflection, frames for his thoughts forms which half conceal, half reveal them” The Parabolic Teaching of Christ , p. 20. : a vineyard, the theme suitably named first. is the usual word in Greek authors, but Kypke cites some instances of in late authors. (here only), the under vat of a wine press, into which the juices trampled out in the flowed. (W.H [109] ), a defective form, as if from . Cf. , Heb 12:16 .

[109] Westcott and Hort.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

Mark Chapter 12

Mar 12:1-12 .

Mat 21:33-46 ; Luk 20:9-19 .

He parable with which this chapter opens sets forth in a few plain words, and in highly pregnant touches, the moral history of Israel as under the dealings of God. In what follows we have the various classes of Israel successively exposing themselves, while they were attempting to perplex the Lord. They thought to judge Him; the result was, they were themselves judged. But in the parable with which the chapter begins the Lord sets forth God’s dealings with the nation as a whole. “A man planted a vineyard and made a fence round it.” There was everything done on God’s part both to give them what was of Himself and separate them from the rest of sinful men. They were duly warned against contamination by heathen corruptions. He “dug a wine-vat.” There was every stilted preparation for the full results of their work, and there was also full protection, for He “built a tower.” Thus the owner let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country.” This set forth their responsibility. The Jewish system in the past is man under probation. “At the season He sent to the husbandmen a bondman, that he might receive from the husbandmen of the fruit of the vineyard.” It is the moral trial of man exemplified in Israel’s conduct. Man is bound to make returns to God, according to the position in which God has set him. Israel had every possible advantage given them by God. They had priests, religious ordinances, fast-days, feast-days, every help of an outward kind, and even miraculous testimony from time to time. There was nothing wanting that man could have, short of Christ Himself; and even of Him they had the promise, and were after a sort, we know, waiting for Him as their King. They had promises held out to them, and a covenant made with them. In short, there was nothing they had not that could be of any avail had it been possible to have got any good thing out of man. But can any good thing come out of the heart? Is not man a sinner? Is he not utterly defiled and unclean? Can you get a clean thing out of an unclean? It is impossible by any means used to act upon man. You may bring a clean thing among unclean, but if a creature merely it becomes defiled. If it be the Creator, He can deliver, but not even so by merely coming down into the midst of men. It requires more than this – His death. Death is the only door of life and redemption for the lost.

The Lord, then, gives the history of what they did render to God. The servant being sent, “they caught him and beat him, and sent him away empty.” There was no fruit to God – nothing but evil. There was insult to Himself and injury to His servants. “And again He sent to them another bondman; and [at] him they threw stones, and* struck [him] on the head, and sent [him] away (not only empty, but) with insult.” One sin leads to a greater sin where it is not judged. “And again] He sent another; and him they killed; and many others, beating some and killing some.” They are rapidly sliding down the descent to destruction. There remained only one possible motive to act upon the heart of man. “Having yet [therefore]|| one beloved son,** he sent him also last to them, saying, They will reverence my son.” Would not One be acceptable who was Infinitely greater in dignity and absolutely without a fault? For even prophets had faults; though there was great power of God in and by them, they were encompassed with infirmities like other men. But the Son was perfection: what if He were to come? Surely they must feel that the Son of God had an incomparably higher claim upon their affections and their reverence. And so it would have been had not man been utterly lost. And what was the moral lesson as to man brought out in the cross. Man was then proved to be utterly corrupt. God allowed it to be shown to the uttermost practically by the people of Israel. Nothing proved it so completely as the mission of the Son of God. The trial then closed in His rejection; but His rejection was their rejection before God. Man, no matter how tried or how greatly privileged, ends in proving his total opposition to God, his hopeless ruin in His sight. “But those husbandmen said to one another, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.” It was an opportunity for the will of man not to be lost. Satan led them on to wish to have the world to themselves. This is what man most values – to shut God out of His own world, and it was consummated by no act so much as by their killing the Lord Jesus – by His cross. It was man’s rejection of God in the person of His Son. Henceforth he was shown to be evidently not only weak and sinful, but God’s enemy. Even when He was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, man not only preferred, but was determined to have the world without God. In fact, this manifests that the world lies in the wicked one; and Satan, who was really the prince of the world before, became, on the casting out of Him who was God, the god of the world then. Man must have some god over him; if he rejects the true God in the person of Christ, Satan becomes his god not really alone, but in this case manifestly. “And they took him and killed him, and cast him out of the vineyard.” This closes the probationary measures.tid=41#bkm122- “What, therefore, shall the Lord of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard to others.” Nothing is said here of their rendering Him the fruits in their seasons, as we have in Matthew. It is the breaking of the old links with Israel (indeed, with man), and the giving the place of privilege to others. But more than that: the destruction of the old husbandmen follows. This has already taken place in part in the downfall of the Jewish people and of Jerusalem. Nor is this all. “Have ye not read this Scripture: The stone which the builders rejected, the same has become the corner-stone: this is of the Lord, and it is wonderful in our eyes?” The Spirit does not here introduce the further fact related in Matthew. Not only is the stone to be exalted, the rejected prophet to become the exalted Lord (that is quite in keeping with Mark’s object), but in Matthew the other positions of the stone are developed more. First of all, He is a stone of stumbling on the earth; and next the stone, after His exaltation, falls upon its enemies at the close and grinds them to powder. This is connected with the prophecies and their accomplishment for both the Jews and the world. The Jews did trip upon Him in His humiliation when He was upon the earth; but when they finally take the place of adversaries, not only in unbelief, but in deadly opposition, forming, indeed, the chosen party of His great enemy, the Antichrist – upon them He will fall destructively at the end of the age. In Mark, however, it is simply that the rejected stone is exalted. This at once was felt by the hearers.tid=41#bkm121- “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 away.”

*”Threw stones, and”: as AC, etc., Syrpesch hcl Goth. AEth. Edd. omit, after BD, etc., 1, 33, Old Latin, Memph.

“With insult”: so AC, etc., Syrpesch hcl Arm. Goth. AEth. B[D], etc., 1, 33, Old Latin, etc., have “and insulted [him],” as Edd.

“Again”: so AN, etc., Syr, pesch hcl Arm. Goth. Edd. omit, with BCD, etc., 33, Memph.

“Having”: so ACDpm, etc., 69, Jerome’s Vulg., Memph. Edd. adopt “he had,” after BCcorr L, etc., 33, Syr.

||”Therefore”: so ACD, etc., Syrhcl. Edd. follow BL, etc., 33, 69, Memph., in omitting the word.

**”One beloved son “: so Edd., after MBCD, etc., Amiat. Memph. A, etc., 1, 33, 69, have “one son, his beloved.”

“Also”: so ACD, etc., Syrhcl Goth. Edd. omit, after BL, etc.

“Therefore”: as ACD, all cursives, Syrpesch hcl Arm. Swete, as Edd., omits, following BL, Memph,

Psa 118:22 f.

Mar 12:13-17 .

Mat 22:15-22 ; Luk 20:20-26 .

Now comes the trial of the different classes into which the Jews were divided. “They send unto Him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians to catch Him in His 2 words.” Ominous alliance! for ordinarily the Pharisees and Herodians were bitterly hostile to each other. The Pharisees were the great sticklers for religious forms, the Herodians were more the courtier party, the men who cultivated every means of advancing their interests in the world, as the others did for securing a religious reputation. But where Christ is concerned, the most opposed can unite against Him or His truth. “And they come, and say to Him, Teacher, we know that Thou art true, and carest for no one; for Thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth.” They stooped to flattery and falsehood to effect their malicious end. What they said was, no doubt, true in itself, but it was utterly false as the expression of their feelings and judgment about Him. “Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar or not? Should we give, or should we not give?” They wished to involve the Lord in a Yea or Nay that would compromise Him either with the Jews or with the Romans. If He said Yes, then He was giving up the hopes of Israel, apparently; He was but sealing them up in their bondage to the Romans. How could He be a true-hearted Jew, or, still more, the Messiah, their expected deliverer, if He left them as much as ever slaves of the Roman power? If He said No, then He would make Himself obnoxious to that jealous Government, and give them a handle against Him as a setter-up of seditious claims for the throne of Palestine. But the Lord replies with consummate and Divine wisdom; and “knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye Me? Bring me a penny that I may see [it]. And they brought [it]. And He says to them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” This answer was complete and absolutely perfect, for in truth there was no conscience in them. Had they felt aright they would have been ashamed of the fact that the money current in their land was Roman money. It was their sin: and man, while he rejects Christ, refuses to look at his own sin. The Lord Jesus leaves them where their sin had brought them, makes them feel that it was their own fault and sin that had put them under the Romans’ authority. He simply says, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” If you are here by your own fault, subject to Caesar for your sins, own the truth of your state and its cause, and pay what is due to Caesar; but forget not that God never ceases to be God, and see that you render to Him the things that are His. They were neither honest subjects of Caesar, nor were they, still less, faithful to God. Had they been true to Him they would have received the Lord Jesus. But there was neither conscience nor faith.

Mar 12:18-27 .

Mat 22:23-33 ; Luk 20:27-38 .

“Then come unto Him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection; and they asked Him, saying, Teacher, Moses wrote unto us, If anyone’s brother die, and leave a wife behind, and leave no children, that his brother shall take his wife, and raise up seed to his brother. There were seven brethren; and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed. And the second took her, and died, neither left he any seed; and the third likewise. And the seven [took her, and]* left no seed; last of all the woman also died. In the resurrection, when they shall rise again, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her as wife.”

*[“Took her and”]: so AD (virtually), most later uncials, almost all cursives, Syr, Jerome’s Vulg., and other versions. Edd. omit, with BCL, etc., 33.

ACcorr, etc., 1, Amiat. Syrsin pesch hcl. Arm. AEth. add “therefore” after “resurrection.” Edd. omit, after BCpm, etc.

Here, again, it was merely a difficulty. The Sadducees were the infidel party, and all the apparent strength of infidelity lies in putting difficulties, in raising up imaginary cases which do not apply, in reasoning from the things of men to the things of God. The whole basis is false assumption. The Lord says to them, “Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the Scriptures, neither the power of God.” They betrayed, as usual, their ignorance of the Scriptures, spite of much pretentiousness, else they would not have put such a case. As for difficulties, what are they to the power of God, supposing there were difficulties to man? But what is beyond the power and conception of man is very possible to God; all things are possible even to him that believeth. But the truth is that it was total ignorance to suppose that in the resurrection state such a contingency could arise. The question, besides, took for granted the resurrection, which was exactly what they denied. Scepticism is habitually crooked – not less false than superstition. Whose would this woman be who had the seven husbands successively? The answer is, she would belong to none then. There is no such thing as a resumption of earthly ties in the resurrection. People do not rise from the dead as husbands and wives, parents and children, masters or servants. Next, the Lord meets the question, not on the ground of their difficulty or mistake, but on its own merits according to the word of God. “When they rise from among [the] dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels in heaven. And as touching the dead, that they rise, have ye not read in the book of Moses, how, in the [section of the] bush, how God spoke unto him, saying, I [am] the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.”

This portion He takes, not because it is the clearest Scripture in the Old Testament, but because it is in the books of Moses, which these Sadducees chiefly valued. God never gave the land of Israel in actual possession to Abraham or Isaac or Jacob when * they were alive in their natural bodies; yet He did promise them the land, not merely to their children, but to themselves. Therefore they must rise in order to have that land so promised to them. God gave them the land in promise, but they never possessed it; they must therefore possess it another day. And as this possession cannot be in their dead state, they must live again in order actually to have the promised land. The resurrection, therefore, is proved from God’s declaring Himself to Moses as the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob It is impossible that the promise He made them should not be fulfilled.

Mar 12:28-34 .

Mat 22:34-40 ; Luk 10:25-28 , Luk 20:39 , Luk 20:40 .

Then come the Scribes. One of them, “having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that He had answered them well, asked Him, Which is the first commandment of all? And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, Israel; The LORD our God is one LORD; and thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thine understanding, and with all thy strength.tid=41#bkm123- This is the first commandment.* And a second like it [is] this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.” The scribe was obliged to acknowledge the Lord’s wisdom.

*”This is the first commandment”: so AD, etc., all cursives, Syrsin pesch hcl, most Lat., Arm. Goth. Edd. omit, as B, Memph.

He comprises the pith of the law of God in these two extracts – the love of God, which is unlimited; the love of one’s neighbour, not with all the soul and strength, but “as thyself.” The first is loving God more than oneself, to the exclusion of every other object as a competitor; the second is loving one’s neighbour as oneself. In effect, he that loves God and his neighbour has fulfilled the law, as the Apostle says. Grace goes farther than that – even to the total renunciation of self. The grace of God, which assimilates the Christian spirit, according to the power of his faith, to the revelation which he has made of Christ, leads a person even to death for his brother’s sake. “We ought to lay our lives down for the brethren” (1Jn 3:16 ), still more for God and the truth. “And the scribe said unto Him, Right, Teacher, Thou hast said the truth; for He* is one, and there is none other; and to love Him with all the heart, and with all the intelligence, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love neighbour as oneself, is more than the burnt-offerings and sacrifices.”

*”He”: so ABKLM and later uncials, 1, 33, Amiat. “God” is in (D)EF(G)H, 69, Syrsin hcl (corr) Arm., etc.

He owns in his conscience that thus to love God and one’s neighbour is far better than all upon which the Jews put such stress and value – the outward forms and ceremonies of the law. But there he ended: he saw not Christ; grace, therefore, was unknown to this man. So that all the Lord could say to him was, “Thou art not far from the kingdom of God.” Still, he was outside, for grace alone brings into the kingdom of God through the knowledge of Christ. And whether a person is near or far off from the kingdom of God, it is equally destruction if he does not enter it. This scribe owned what was in the law, but he did not know what was in Christ. The grace of God that brings salvation he knew nothing of. Duty to God and to his neighbour he owned. He set to his seal that the law was good and just (and so it is); not that God is true as revealed in Christ. After this no man durst ask Him anything more. They were answered and silenced in everything.

Mar 12:35-37 .

Mat 22:41-46 ; Luk 20:41-44 .

The Lord now puts His question. It was a brief one, and totally different from the points raised by men. Man’s questions were founded either upon present things, or upon improbabilities to his mind, or upon the casuistry of rival duties. Christ’s question is founded directly on the Scriptures, and, more than that, on the mystery of His own person, that only link of souls with God. Christ’s question had nothing of curiosity in it, nor was it merely one for conscience, but for searching into God’s ways and implicit submission to the revelation of Himself. “How say the scribes that the Christ is Son of David?” It was true the Lord did not deny that the scribes saw the truth, but He raised a question which, if answered truly, holding fast the Scriptures, would have led them to the truth about His own Person. In a word, it was this: How is Christ David’s Lord as well as David’s Son? The scribes saw truly enough that He was David’s Son, but David, writing by the Holy Ghost, said that He was his Lord.tid=41#bkm124- How are these two things to be put together – the lower truth with which the scribes were occupied, and the higher one on which the Holy Ghost specially insists? How was Christ David’s Son and David’s Lord? The link and foundation of it was this, that while He was man, and as man David’s Son, He was much more. In order to be David’s Lord, He must be a Divine Person; but more than that, He is exalted into that place. The Lordship of Christ rests, not alone on His being, a Divine Person, but because He was rejected as Son of David. God has exalted Him to be both Lord and Christ. This opens the whole question of Israel’s treatment of Christ, as well as of Jehovah’s attitude toward Him. In Psa 110 we read: “Jehovah said unto my Lord, Sit Thou at My right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.” Here it is not God sending His well-beloved Son down to the vineyard of Israel, but, when He was cast out, raising Him to His own right hand in heaven. Thus it involves their owning that Israel must have rejected their Messiah, and that when rejected God sets Him at His own right hand in heaven. This, evidently, is the key to the present position of Israel, and leaves room for the calling of the Church; in a word, it is the mystery of the person of Christ and the counsels of God that follows upon His rejection.

Mar 12:38-40 .

Mat 23 ; Luk 20:45-47 .

But He does more than this. “He said to them in His doctrine, Beware of the scribes, who like to walk about in long robes, love salutations in the market-places, and first seats in the synagogues, and first places at suppers. It is not only that the doctrine of the scribes is utterly Imperfect, but even in their ways there was much that was morally low and bad. They loved the honour of men, religious honour peculiarly, and therefore the chief seats in the synagogues, besides the uppermost rooms at feasts. Everything that would contribute to their ease and honour in this world was eagerly sought. More than this, they devour widows’ houses – that is, they take advantage even of the sorrows of people that would expose them to be more entirely under their influence. Along with this there was great religious ostentation, for a pretence making long prayers. “These shall receive severer judgment.”

Mar 12:41-44 .

Luk 21:1-4 .

But now the Lord singles out those with whom He had sympathy on the earth. “Jesus sat down opposite the treasury, and saw the crowd casting money into the treasury; and many rich cast in much. And a poor widow came, and cast in two mites, which make a farthing; and He called to [Him] His disciples, and said to them, Verily I say unto you, This poor widow hath cast more in than all who have cast into the treasury.” The reason He gives: “for all have cast in of their abundance, but she of her want hath cast in all that she had, the whole of her living.” God does not go by the amount given; He judges not by what is contributed, but by what is kept behind for self. In this case it was nothing – all was given. Those who gave of their abundance reserved the greater part for themselves; but the test of liberality is not what is given, but what is left. The much that is kept for self-enjoyment is the proof of how little is given. But when there is nothing left, but all is cast into the treasury of God, there is the true working of Divine love and faith. There is what God values, because it is the expression not only of generous giving, but of entire confidence in Himself. This poor woman was a widow, and it might have seemed that she of all others was entitled to keep what little she had; but no – little as it was, all is for God. The dealing with such a small sum might have been a trouble to those who would have to count it, but it was noticed of God, valued by Him, and recorded for us, that we may confide in God, and may give whatever is according to His mind.

NOTES ON Mar 12 .

121 Mar 12:1-11 . – This is the passage taken by Dr. Abbott in comparison with Mat 21:33-44 , Luk 20:9-18 , to illustrate the theory of the composition of the Gospels put forth by him in the “Encyclopaedia Britannica” (see note 11). All the words in the Greek of Mark, save four, he shows, are common to Matthew’s and Luke’s parallels. The difficulty any mere “compiler” would have had is set forth without any exaggeration.

122 Mar 12:8 . – It is common, with regard to the question of probation, either (1) to uphold the idea that Christians are under the law, or (2) to deny man’s complete moral ruin before God, in either alternative impairing Pauline doctrine (Gal 5:18 , Rom 6:14 , Rom 7:18 , Rom 8:8 ). The alleged antithesis between the Synoptic reaching of the Lord on this subject and that of the Apostle is one of the novelties of “modern thought” with which the present generation is harassed. Anyone may understand that the full truth as to human depravity must have become clearer after the Crucifixion; yet the germs of Paul’s doctrine, like that of John (Joh 3 ), are to be found in Mar 10:15 , the truth of which Matthew’s (Mat 18:3 ) does but emphasize.

123 Mar 12:28-34 . – The words quoted by the Lord in verse 29 f. are those of the Shema, which it was the duty of males to repeat morning and evening. On the use made by Christ of the Hebrew, Farrar (“Life of Christ,” p. 69) writes: “Jesus was acquainted with it, for some of His Scriptural quotations directly refer to the Hebrew original.”

124 : Mar 12:35-37 . – We are here told that David himself, and that by inspiration (for the Greek, cf. Rev 1:10 ), said that which modern critics deny to him as his words. The old Jewish idea of the authorship of Psa 110 was that, in David’s old age, when he could no longer go out to battle, a Court poet composed it in order to console him. But the Evangelist here tells us that the Lord cited the Psalm definitely as David’s own. Not content with the denial of such authorship, some writers go on to represent that Christ here disavowed His being Himself “Son of David” Rville i., p. 47 note, 303 f., 381; Bousset, p. 182). Compare what Professor Sanday says on this subject (article “Son of God,” p. 573 in Hastings); Neander (p. 402) “to oppose a one-sided adherence to the one at the expense of the other”; and, for the relation of sonship of God to the Lord’s Messianic claims, the article in Hastings just referred to, p. 576.

125 Mar 12:40 . – As to the result of comparing Mark’s record with that of Matthew (23: 5), see note 7.

Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)

Mark

DISHONEST TENANTS

Mar 12:1 – Mar 12:12 .

The ecclesiastical rulers had just been questioning Jesus as to the authority by which He acted. His answer, a counter-question as to John’s authority, was not an evasion. If they decided whence John came, they would not be at any loss as to whence Jesus came. If they steeled themselves against acknowledging the Forerunner, they would not be receptive of Christ’s message. That keen-edged retort plainly indicates Christ’s conviction of the rulers’ insincerity, and in this parable He charges home on these solemn hypocrites their share in the hereditary rejection of messengers whose authority was unquestionable. Much they cared for even divine authority, as they and their predecessors had shown through centuries! The veil of parable is transparent here. Jesus increased in severity and bold attack as the end drew near.

I. The parable begins with a tender description of the preparation and allotment of the vineyard.

The picture is based upon Isaiah’s lovely apologue Isa 5:1, which was, no doubt, familiar to the learned officials. But there is a slight difference in the application of the metaphor which in Isaiah means the nation, and in the parable is rather the theocracy as an institution, or, as we may put it roughly, the aggregate of divine revelations and appointments which constituted the religious prerogatives of Israel.

Our Lord follows the original passage in the description of the preparation of the vineyard, but it would probably be going too far to press special meanings on the wall, the wine-press, and the watchman’s tower. The fence was to keep off marauders, whether passers-by or ‘the boar out of the wood’ Psa 80:12 – Psa 80:13; the wine-press, for which Mark uses the word which means rather the vat into which the juice from the press proper flowed, was to extract and collect the precious liquid; the tower was for the watchman.

A vineyard with all these fittings was ready for profitable occupation. Thus abundantly had God furnished Israel with all that was needed for fruitful, happy service. What was true of the ancient Church is still more true of us who have received every requisite for holy living. Isaiah’s solemn appeal has a still sharper edge for Christians: ‘Judge, I pray you, betwixt me and my vineyard. What could have been done more to my vineyard that I have not done in it?’

The ‘letting of the vineyard to husbandmen’ means the committal to Israel and its rulers of these divine institutions, and the holding them responsible for their fruitfulness. It may be a question whether the tenants are to be understood as only the official persons, or whether, while these are primarily addressed, they represent the whole people. The usual interpretation limits the meaning to the rulers, but, if so, it is difficult to carry out the application, as the vineyard would then have to be regarded as being the nation, which confuses all. The language of Matthew which threatens the taking of the vineyard and giving it to another nation obliges us to regard the nation as included in the husbandmen, though primarily the expression is addressed to the rulers.

But more important is it to note the strong expressions for man’s quasi-independence and responsibility. The Jew was invested with full possession of the vineyard. We all, in like manner, have intrusted to us, to do as we will with, the various gifts and powers of Christ’s gospel. God, as it were, draws somewhat apart from man, that he may have free play for his choice, and bear the burden of responsibility. The divine action was conspicuous at the time of founding the polity of Judaism, and then came long years in which there were no miracles, but all things continued as they were. God was as near as before, but He seemed far off. Thus Jesus has, in like manner, gone ‘into a far country to receive a kingdom and to return’; and we, the tenants of a richer vineyard than Israel’s, have to administer what He has intrusted to us, and to bring near by faith Him who is to sense far off.

II. The next scenes paint the conduct of the dishonest vine-dressers.

We mark the stern, dark picture drawn of the continued and brutal violence, as well as the flagrant unfaithfulness, of the tenants. Matthew’s version gives emphasis to the increasing harshness of treatment of the owner’s messengers, as does Mark’s. First comes beating, then wounding, then murder. The interpretation is self-evident. The ‘servants’ are the prophets, mostly men inferior in rank to the hierarchy, shepherds, fig-gatherers, and the like. They came to rouse Israel to a sense of the purpose for which they had received their distinguishing prerogatives, and their reward had been contempt and maltreatment. They ‘had trial of mockings and scourgings, of bonds and imprisonment: they were stoned, they were sawn asunder, they were slain with the sword.’

The indictment is the same as that by which Stephen wrought the Sanhedrim into a paroxysm of fury. To make such a charge as Jesus did, in the very Temple courts, and with the already hostile priests glaring at Him while He spoke, was a deliberate assault on them and their predecessors, whose true successors they showed themselves to be. They had just been solemnly questioning Him as to His authority. He answers by thus passing in review the uniform treatment meted by them and their like to those who came with God’s manifest authority.

If a mere man had spoken this parable, we might admire the magnificent audacity of such an accusation. But the Speaker is more than man, and we have to recognise the judicial calmness and severity of His tone. Israel’s history, as it shaped itself before His ‘pure eyes and perfect judgment,’ was one long series of divine favours and of human ingratitude, of ample preparations for righteous living and of no result, of messengers sent and their contumelious rejection. We wonder at the sad monotony of such requital. Are we doing otherwise?

III. Then comes the last effort of the Owner, the last arrow in the quiver of Almighty Love.

Two things are to be pondered in this part of the parable. First, that wonderful glimpse into the depths of God’s heart, in the hope expressed by the Owner of the vineyard, brings out very clearly Christ’s claim, made there before all these hostile, keen critics, to stand in an altogether singular relation to God. He asserts His Sonship as separating Him from the class of prophets who are servants only, and as constituting a relationship with the Father prior to His coming to earth. His Sonship is no mere synonym for His Messiahship, but was a fact long before Bethlehem; and its assertion lifts for us a corner of the veil of cloud and darkness round the throne of God. Not less striking is the expression of a frustrated hope in ‘they will reverence My Son.’ Men can thwart God’s purpose. His divine charity ‘hopeth all things.’ The mystery thus sharply put here is but that which is presented everywhere in the co-existence of God’s purposes and man’s freedom.

The other noteworthy point is the corresponding casting of the vine-dressers’ thoughts into words. Both representations are due to the graphic character of parable; both crystallise into speech motives which were not actually spoken. It is unnecessary to suppose that even the rulers of Israel had gone the awful length of clear recognition of Christ’s Messiahship, and of looking each other in the face and whispering such a fiendish resolve. Jesus is here dragging to light unconscious motives. The masses did wish to have their national privileges and to avoid their national duties. The rulers did wish to have their sway over minds and consciences undisturbed. They did resent Jesus’ interference, chiefly because they instinctively felt that it threatened their position. They wanted to get Him out of the way, that they might lord it at will. They could have known that He was the Son, and they suppressed dawning suspicions that He was. Alas! they have descendants still in many of us who put away His claims, even while we secretly recognise them, in order that we may do as we like without His meddling with us! The rulers’ calculation was a blunder. As Augustine says, ‘They slew Him that they might possess, and, because they slew, they lost.’ So is it always. Whoever tries to secure any desired end by putting away his responsibility to render to God the fruit of his thankful service, loses the good which he would fain clutch at for his own. All sin is a mistake.

The parable passes from thinly veiled history to equally transparent prediction. How sadly and how unshrinkingly does the meek yet mighty Victim disclose to the conspirators His perfect knowledge of the murder which they were even now hatching in their minds! He foresees all, and will not lift a finger to prevent it. Mark puts the ‘killing’ before the ‘casting out of the vineyard,’ while Matthew and Luke invert the order of the two things. The slaughtered corpse was, as a further indignity, thrown over the wall, by which is symbolically expressed His exclusion from Israel, and the vine-dressers’ delusion that they now had secured undisturbed possession.

IV. The last point is the authoritative sentence on the evil-doers.

Mark’s condensed account makes Christ Himself answer His own question. Probably we are to suppose that, with hypocritical readiness, some of the rulers replied, as the other Evangelists represent, and that Jesus then solemnly took up their words. If anything could have enraged the rulers more than the parable itself, the distinct declaration of the transference of Israel’s prerogatives to more worthy tenants would do so. The words are heavy with doom. They carry a lesson for us. Stewardship implies responsibility, and faithlessness, sooner or later, involves deprivation. The only way to keep God’s gifts is to use them for His glory. ‘The grace of God,’ says Luther somewhere, ‘is like a flying summer shower.’ Where are Ephesus and the other apocalyptic churches? Let us ‘take heed lest, if God spared not the natural branches, He also spare not us.’

Jesus leaves the hearers with the old psalm ringing in their ears, which proclaimed that ‘the stone which the builders rejected becomes the head stone of the corner.’ Other words of the same psalm had been chanted by the crowd in the procession on entering the city. Their fervour was cooling, but the prophecy would still be fulfilled. The builders are the same as the vine-dressers; their rejection of the stone is parallel with slaying the Son.

But though Jesus foretells His death, He also foretells His triumph after death. How could He have spoken, almost in one breath, the prophecy of His being slain and ‘cast out of the vineyard,’ and that of His being exalted to be the very apex and shining summit of the true Temple, unless He had been conscious that His death was indeed not the end, but the centre, of His work, and His elevation to universal and unchanging dominion?

Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Mar 12:1-11

1And He began to speak to them in parables: “A man planted a vineyard and put a wall around it, and dug a vat under the wine press and built a tower, and rented it out to vine-growers and went on a journey. 2At 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. 3They took him, and beat him and sent him away empty-handed. 4Again he sent them another slave, and they wounded him in the head, and treated him shamefully. 5And he sent another, and that one they killed; and so with many others, beating some and killing others. 6He had one more to send, a beloved son; he sent him last of all to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ 7But those vine-growers said to one another, ‘This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours!’ 8They took him, and killed him and threw him out of the vineyard. 9What will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the vine-growers, and will give the vineyard to others. 10Have you not even read this Scripture: ‘The stone which the builders rejected, This became the chief corner stone; 11This came about from the Lord, And it is marvelous in our eyes’?”

Mar 12:1 “to speak to them in parables” “Them” refers directly to the representatives from the Sanhedrin (cf. Mar 11:27), but indirectly to the large crowd.

This whole chapter is a series of questions from the religious leaders:

1. from the Sanhedrin (Mar 11:27 to Mar 12:12)

2. from the Pharisees and Herodians (Mar 12:13-17)

3. from the Sadducees (Mar 12:18-27)

4. from a scribe (Mar 12:28-34)

5. from Jesus (Mar 11:29-33; Mar 12:9; Mar 12:35-37)

“‘planted a vineyard and put a wall around it, and dug a vat under the wine press and built a tower'” This is a quote from the Septuagint of Isa 5:1-2. The grapevine was one of the symbols for the nation of Israel (as was the fig tree in Mar 11:12-14; Mar 11:20-25). Isaiah 5 uses a vineyard folk song to address Israel. Matthew includes several other parables that also address the nation of Israel (cf. Mat 22:1-14). It is hard to determine whether God rejected

1. Israel’s illegal, non-Aaronicc leaders

2. her self-righteous, judgmental legalism

3. the unbelief of the nation as a whole. Israel, with all her covenantal privileges (cf. Rom 9:4-5), was also held responsible for the Mosaic covenant responsibilities (cf. Deuteronomy 27-28)

It is striking how different Isaiah 5’s procedure in describing God’s free and available love for all who would come is compared to the stringency and violence of these tenant farmers in this parable.

Mar 12:2 “‘At the harvest time'” Usually it took at least five years for grapevines to begin to produce at commercial levels. The owner expected to participate in his investment.

Mar 12:2; Mar 12:4-6 “‘sent'” God attempted to communicate by sending several representatives, even His own son. This represents the longsuffering of God and His desire to establish a covenantal relationship.

Mar 12:2; Mar 12:4-5 “‘a slave'” These slaves represent the OT prophets. Matthew, as is characteristic, has two slaves (cf. Mat 21:34). This text clearly shows how Matthew combines Mark’s account of several slaves one at a time into one occurrence.

Mar 12:3 “‘beat'” This refers to a severe beating. It literally means “to skin” or “to flay” (cf. Mar 13:9).

Mar 12:4 “‘wounded him in the head'” This refers to being repeatedly struck on the head. It shows the abuse suffered by those who represented God and spoke for Him (i.e., the OT prophets) to His rebellious covenant people.

“‘and treated him shamefully'” This is a verbal form of the name Timothy, which means “honor” or “worth” with the alpha privative. It connotes “to treat with contempt” or “total disrespect” (cf. Jas 2:6).

Mar 12:5 Why did God send servant after servant? God created humanity for a purposefellowship with Himself. He wants to establish a people like Himself, but they/we will not. Yet, God tries again and again to reach us! He has a “love that will not let go” for His creation.

Mar 12:6 “‘He had one more to send, a beloved son'” This obviously refers to Jesus. This same phrase is used by the Father at Jesus’ baptism (Mat 1:11; Mat 3:17) and transfiguration (Mar 9:7; Mat 17:5). This same truth is seen in Joh 3:16 and Heb 1:1-2. It is a combination of a Royal Psalm (i.e., Mar 2:7) and a Suffering Servant passage (i.e., Isa 42:1).

Mar 12:7 “‘and the inheritance will be ours'” This refers legally to the Jewish law of “ownerless property” that could be claimed by right of possession. It reflects mankind’s fallen attitude of “more and more for me at any cost.” Humanity wants to be its own god (cf. Genesis 3).

Mar 12:8 “‘threw him out of the vineyard'” Improper burial shows the tenant’s complete contempt for the owner and his son!

The Gospel parallels describe the sequence as they threw the son out of the vineyard and then killed him (cf. Mat 21:39; Luk 19:15). This was probably to identify further with Jesus’ death outside of the city walls of Jerusalem.

Mar 12:9 This verse shows God’s response toward those who killed His only Son. In Mark’s Gospel Jesus asks the crowd a question. This reflects Isa 5:3-4, where the prophet asks a question. The hearers are condemned out of their own mouths (i.e., Mat 21:41). God will hold all conscious creation accountable for the gift of life. We will reap what we sow (cf. Mar 4:21-25; Mat 13:12; Mat 25:14-30; Gal 6:7).

“will give the vineyard to others” The “others” seems to refer to the church, made up of believing Jews and Gentiles (cf. Eph 2:11 to Eph 3:13).

Mar 12:10 “‘Have you not even read this Scripture'” This is Jesus’ introduction to a verse that was used every year in their processionals welcoming pilgrims into Jerusalem (i.e., Psa 118:22-23). This question is a recurrent theme in the NT (cf. Mat 21:42; Luk 20:17; Act 4:11; Rom 9:32-33; 1Pe 2:7). It explains the problem of how Israel could miss her Messiah (cf. Romans 9-11). This statement was a slap in the face to the very ones who claimed to know the Scriptures!

“stone” This is a quote of Psa 118:22-23 from the Septuagint. In rabbinical writings, this stone referred to Abraham, David, or the Messiah (cf. Dan 2:34-35). This same Psalm was quoted as part of the Hallel Psalms, used to welcome the pilgrims coming to Jerusalem for the Passover.

“builders” In rabbinic writing this term referred to the scribes. The comments Jesus added are recorded in Mat 21:43-44. Notice here the builders are condemned for missing the most important truth: Jesus is the promised Messiah.

“‘the chief corner stone'” The metaphor of the Messiah as a stone comes from several OT usages.

1. YHWH’s strength and stability (cf. Psa 18:1-2)

2. Daniel’s vision in chapter 2 (cf. Dan 2:34-35; Dan 2:48)

3. the building component which either

a. starts the building (i.e., cornerstone)

b. holds the weight of the building (i.e., center stone or keystone in the arch)

c. finishes the building (i.e., top stone or cap stone)

The building refers metaphorically to the people of God, the true temple (cf. 1Co 3:16-17; 2Co 6:16; Eph 2:19-22).

SPECIAL TOPIC: CORNERSTONE

Mar 12:11 This verse implies that everything which occurred in the rejection and death of Jesus was foreknown and prophesied (cf. Isa 53:10; Luk 22:22; Act 2:23; Act 3:18; Act 4:28; 1Pe 1:20).

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

began.See note on Mar 1:1.

by = in. Greek. en App-104. as in Mar 12:36.

man. Greek. anthropos. App-123.

set an hedge = placed a fence.

winefat. Occurs only here in N.T. = a wine-vat. “Fat” is from A.S. foet= a vessel (compare Dutch vatten= to catch). Northern Eng. for vat.

tower = watch-house. See note on Mat 21:33.

let it out, &c. See note on Mat 21:33.

huabandmen = vine-dressers.

went into a far country = went abroad. See note on Mat 21:33.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

1-12.] PARABLE OF THE VINEYARD LET OUT TO HUSBANDMEN. This parable is, for the most part, identical with that in Mat 21:33-46, and Luk 20:9-19. The number, and treatment of the servants sent, is enlarged on here;-and in Mar 12:4 there occurs the singular word , which appears to be used by a solcism for , to wound in the head. Some have rendered it, they made short work with him, which is the more usual sense of the word, but not probable here; for they did not kill him, but disgracefully used him.

I must not allow any opportunity to pass of directing attention to the sort of difference, in similarity, between these three reports,-and observing that no origin of that difference is imaginable, except the gradual deflection of accounts from a common, or a parallel, source.

See notes on Matt. throughout.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

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 ( Mar 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 Mar 12:1 of Isa 5:1-30 , “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” ( Isa 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? ( Mar 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 ( Mar 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 Psa 118:1-29 , 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? ( Mar 12:10-11 )

This particular Psa 118:1-29, “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, Psa 118:1-29 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 ( Mar 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 ( Mar 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? ( Mar 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 ( Mar 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? ( Mar 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] ( Mar 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 ( Mar 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 ( Mar 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] ( Mar 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]? ( Mar 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 ( Mar 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 ( Mar 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] ( Mar 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? ( Mar 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 ( Mar 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 ( Mar 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 ( Mar 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 ( Mar 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? ( Mar 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] ( Mar 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 Psa 110:1-7 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? ( Mar 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 ( Mar 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 ( Mar 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 ( Mar 12:40 ):

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

these shall receive greater damnation ( Mar 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] ( Mar 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 ( Mar 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 ( Mar 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. “

Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary

Mar 12:1-12

6. THE WICKED HUSBANDMEN

Mar 12:1-12

(Mat 21:33-46; Luk 20:9-26)

1 And he began to speak unto them in parables.–This is a continuation of his work in the temple on Tuesday, April 12.

A man planted a vineyard,–[The vineyard is a piece of land planted in vines to produce grapes and make wine.]

and set a hedge about it,–[It is fenced, or hedged, to protect the vines from destruction by beasts, or being robbed by marauders. Sometimes a vineyard was protected by both a fence and a wall. (Isa 5:5.) A common way of inclosing fields in Judea was either with a fence of wood or stones, or more probably with thorns, thickset and growing.]

and digged a pit for the winepress,–[The winepress–the winevat, as it is frequently written–was the pit dug in which the juice from the presses would flow.]

and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen,– [The tower was the building in which the husbandmen dwelt, and sometimes under it the vats for grapes were placed one above the other. In the upper one they were trod out; in the lower one was the must. From this the juice descended into the winevat in the earth. The owner let out his vineyard, with all its fixtures, to husbandmen. They were to give him his rent at the proper seasons. He took rent or tithes in the product of the vineyard. “A man planted a vineyard.” This is intended to represent that God planted a people in the land of Canaan. He hedged it around by the divine order and the divine protection. We do not know that every point of the vineyard represented something of the kingdom–at least we cannot certainly point out the thing represented. The wine-vat is sometimes said to be the sacrifices typical of the sufferings of Jesus, and the tower the temple in which God is worshiped. He intrusted its cultivation and management to the priests and Levites, of whom the scribes were the leaders. When these were appointed, Jesus left it to their management, under the general direction of his laws and precepts. They were to be accountable to God for the faithful teaching of these laws.]

and went into another country.–Literally, in our style, “moved away.” Luke adds “for a long time,” indicating that the parable goes far back in the years in its application. We shall fail to get all the practical good from this lesson if we confine it to the Jewish people. Again God has let out his vineyard to husbandmen, to the professed followers of Jesus Christ. The kingdom of God is now within us. Each of us has a part of God’s vineyard possessions to cultivate. He has fenced us round with promises and precepts, and given us the means for fruit.

2 And at the season he sent to the husbandmen a servant, that he might receive from the husbandmen of the fruits of the vineyard.–That is, to collect the owner’s part of the produce; or as we often say, “collect the rent.” The servant was sent as the agent of the master. [When the proper season for the fruit of the vineyard came, he sent to the husbandmen a servant to receive his portion–the rentals due him for the use of the vineyard and the winepresses. During the Jewish dispensation God sent his prophets to warn his people of their departure from his law, and to demand of them the obedience and the worship that were his dues. God had especially provided for the well-being of the Jewish people. Deu 6:10-12.]

3 And they took him, and beat him, and sent him away empty.–Three steps taken–“took,” “beat,” and “sent away empty.” [So these husbandmen did to the messengers sent to receive the fruits due the Lord; so the Jewish people, often led by the priests and Levites, did to the prophet sent of God.]

4 And again he sent unto them another servant; and him they wounded in the head, and handled shamefully.–[The Lord sent still other servants demanding his due for his own vineyard that he had planted, hedged, and fitted up with the winepress. They treated this one worse than the first. One step in rebellion and sin prepares for another. Evil men and seducers wax worse and worse.]

5 And he sent another; and him they killed:–Their wickedness increases under the patience of the owner. The climax was now reached, and the rest is merely the statement of repetition of outrage and continuance of refusal to render fruit.

and many others; beating some, and killing some.–[It is probable Jesus in his different descriptions had in mind particular leading prophets that had suffered, that he pointed out to them, in the history of the Jewish nation, and that they recognized them, but which we, in our ignorance of the facts, do not recognize. Some writers attempt to point out the different ones referred to in the different verses. There is too much uncertainty in this to be of profit. Jesus charges upon them the blood of all the prophets: “Therefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: some of them shall ye kill and crucify and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city: that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of Abel the righteous unto the blood of Zachariah son of Barachiah, whom ye slew between the sanctuary and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.” (Mat 23:34-36.) That is, one step after another in the path of crime has been taken that shall in this generation culminate in the sum of all crimes–the killing of the Son of God. These former servants were typical of Jesus.]

6 He had yet one, a beloved son:–The rest were servants, literally bond servants, slaves, in the Greek, but this is his own son.

he sent him last unto them, saying, They will reverence my son.–They will so respect and reverence my son so as to heed what he says and pay the rent on the vineyard. [The Lord of the vineyard having one only and beloved son, determined to send him as a final resort, saying, “They will reverence my son.” The truth here represents God as the great lord of the vineyard who sends his only Son to warn the people of the dishonor and shame they bring upon God, and of the ruin they bring upon themselves in refusing to honor God. He here, while portraying the depth of wickedness, the extremity to which a course of wickedness brings the people, foretells his own death speedily to happen, and he holds out the thought that these religious teachers will do it.]

7 But those husbandmen said among themselves, This is the heir;–The son of the landlord and to whom the ownership of the vineyard will finally go.

come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours.–[The husbandmen to whom he had intrusted his vineyard, when they saw the son–the heir–plotted to kill him, and then the inheritance will be theirs. As Jesus put forth higher claims to be the Son of God than others, so their bitterness against him was correspondingly greater. Very generally it is supposed that the priests and scribes persecuted Jesus because they thought him an impostor, but many of them did it with a knowledge of the truth that he was a divine personage.]

8 And they took him, and killed him, and cast him forth out of the vineyard.–Here, as in verse 3, three steps are taken. Luke says: “And they cast him forth out of the vineyard, and killed him.” So also Matthew and Luke give the facts and not the order in which they occurred. [The priests and scribes were responsible for the death of Jesus. They urged others to crucify him, and were as responsible for his death as if they had done it with their own hands. “Cast him forth out of the vineyard.” They rejected him and his teaching as having no place in the dominion of God.]

9 What therefore will the lord of the vineyard do?–The design of this question was that they might condemn themselves, and admit the justice of the punishment that was soon coming upon them.

he will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others.–[In view of this repeated rebellion, these successive steps in rebellion, each increasing in heinousness against the Lord of the vineyard, what shall he do? The answer to that question reveals what God will do to those who have departed from his laws, set aside his appointments, and fought against his servants throughout the Jewish dispensation. He will come and destroy the husbandmen, and give the vineyard unto others. Matthew (Mat 21:41) says: “He will miserably destroy those miserable men, and will let out the vineyard unto other husbandmen, who shall render him the fruits in their seasons.” In its application God will destroy these husbandmen–the religious teachers of the Jewish people–who have disobeyed him and led the people to sin, and will deliver his vineyard to other husbandmen who will be more faithful and true to him. Their destruction prefigured the more terrible destruction that awaits those who reject Christ.]

10 Have ye not read even this scripture: The stone which the builders rejected, the same was made the head of the corner;–This and the next verse is a quotation from Psa 118:22. [This was first spoken of David, who was rejected of his parents, or passed over, but who was chosen of God, and became the builder of the kingdom of Judah. It is said to be based upon a fact that when the temple of Solomon was being built, there was an unshapely stone that was rejected of the builders as unfitted for service until they were about completing the building, and it was seen that this stone would so fit in the main arch as to be a key that would hold in position and give strength to the whole arch. Whether this is true or not, Jesus was rejected by the elders and the chief priests (his forerunners and types were rejected);yet he became the head of the corner–the central truth of the whole system of the divine government. The whole Jewish system is meaningless without Christ as the end and culmination of it. It is also the great central truth of the Christian system. The Jewish system is a type in its true development of the Christian system, and so this parable finds its more complete fulfillment in the Christian system than in the Jewish; and it is true that the religious teachers more than others pervert the will of God, and reject his divine authority by substituting ways of their own for the things commanded by God and sealed with his blood. His spiritual body now exists in which his laws, institutions, and commandments, sealed by his blood, are to be observed. When men turn from these laws sealed by his blood, and substitute other appointments for them, they as much reject Christ as the fountain as did the priests and elders his fleshly person. It is as true now as it ever was that men may reject Christ and turn from his laws while professing to follow him, and yet he is the only foundation of the true kingdom of God. To him every tongue shall confess and every knee bow.]

11 This was from the Lord, And it is marvellous in our eyes?–[The so ordering things that the stone which was rejected of the leaders and teachers became the head of the corner was of God’s overruling and controlling, and the whole development is a marvel and a wonder to the world. It is yet, the strong and wise provisions of men must come to naught. God chose the foolish things of the world, that he might put to shame them that are wise; and God chose the weak things of the world, that he might put to shame things that are strong. “And the base things of the world, and the things that are despised, did God choose, yea and the things that are not, that he might bring to nought the things that are.”]

12 And they sought to lay hold on him;–This expresses the effect the parable had upon them.

and they feared the multitude;–They saw the hour was not auspicious. There were too many of the enthusiastic Galileans present.

for they perceived that he spake the parable against them and they left him, and went away.–[The scribes and Pharisees saw it was aimed at them as the leaders and teachers of the people, who misled them, who persecuted the servants of God, and who were then fierce and bitter against him, anxious to destroy him, but fearing the people who regarded him as a prophet. The people most anxious to persecute are the most cowardly.]

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

In this parable of the vineyard the Lord very graphically sketched for those people their own national history, and condemned them thereby. “They perceived that He spake the parable against them.” These words would seem to intimate that the rejection of the Saviour by these rulers of the people was more a sin against light than we sometimes imagine. They had a clear comprehension of what He meant, but they set their hearts and wills against Him.

A coalition of religion and politics, Pharisees and Herodians, approached as if seeking after truth, and proposed a problem. With perfect ease, without resort to any subterfuge, Jesus replied. Caesar’s things to Caesar, God’s to God.

Next, the Sadducees came to Jesus, proposing a possible situation involving the resurrection. Our Lord replied by declaring their ignorance. “Is it not for this cause that ye err, that ye how not the Scriptures, nor the power of God?” (verse Mar 12:24).

Next a scribe asked a very subtle question. In answer, our Lord restated the essential truth of the unity of God, and then uttered the two great commandments, showing that they were great, not by comparison, but by inclusion.

Having answered the questioners, the Lord now carried the conflict into the camp of the enemy, and asked them a question. He played no trick with them in order to “catch them in their talk.” He was revealing a truth, and His question led men into a place where they might see something of the divine method and understand His own position and mission.

Then followed a description of the scribes as He saw them: self-centered men, desiring all the outward show; oppressors, devouring widows’ houses; hypocrites! For a pretense making long prayers. Unholy men. Receiving greater condemnation.

And once again we are face to face with the Master’s keen observation of all that passed around Him, but this time in another application. As He saw the emptiness of the long prayers, so also did He observe the value of the sacrificial gift; and His estimate declares that those two farthings were worth more in the economy of heaven then all the gifts of the wealthy, which lacked the element of sacrifice.

Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible

PARABLE OF THE VINEYARD

12:1-12. Jesus, having denied the authority of the rulers, proceeds to show them in a parable the unfaithfulness to their trust which has lost for them their authority. The story is that of a vineyard let out on shares to cultivators, who maltreat the servants sent by the owner to collect his share, and finally kill his son, and whom the owner destroys, and turns over the vineyard to others. He also cites the proverb of the stone rejected by the builders which becomes the corner stone. The rulers see that the parable is aimed at them, but fear of the multitude holds them in check for the present.

1. -And he began to say to them in parables.

, instead of , Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BGL 1, 13, 69, 118, 124, 346, mss. Lat. Vet. Egyptt. Pesh. Harcl. marg.

evidently refers to the representatives of the Sanhedrim, the parable being a continuation of Jesus conversation with them.1 Mt. says that the chief priests and the Pharisees knew that the parable was directed at them; but he also represents Jesus as saying that the kingdom is to be taken from them, and given to a nation producing its fruits.2 But this confusion of rulers and people must not obscure the plain fact that in Mt. the parable is against the rulers. Lk. says that the parable was spoken to the people, but that the rulers knew that it was spoken against them, two things that are not at all inconsistent.3 -in parables. This use of the plural indicates that Mk. had other parables in mind, though he gives only one. Mt. gives three, all bearing on the same general subject. Mk. states the general fact of teaching in parables, and selects one from the rest. This is one of the facts which seem to indicate that Mk. had the same collection of the teachings of Jesus as Mt. and Lk. to draw upon, viz. the Logia. -A man planted a vineyard. This figure of the vineyard is taken from Isa 5:1, Isa 5:2. Even the details are reproduced. In the LXX. we find .

-is any kind of fence, or wall, that separates lands from each other. -is the receptacle for the juice of the grapes, placed under the , or winepress, in which the grapes were trodden.4 -is the tower from which the watchman overlooked the vineyard. It was also used as a lodge for the keeper of the vineyard. -means tillers or cultivators. 5–went abroad. Far country, AV. is an exaggeration.

, instead of -, Tisch. WH. AB* CKL.

2. -at the season, at the proper time. As this vineyard was equipped with a winepress, this would not be at the grape harvest, but any time following the winemaking. . -The vineyard was let out on shares, the owner receiving a certain part of the product.

, instead of , Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BCLN 33, 433, three mss. Lat. Vet. Pesh.

3. 1-And they took (him), and beat him.

, instead of , Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BDL 33, mss. Lat. Vet. Memph.

4. 2 -and that one they beat about the head, and insulted.

Omit having stoned, before , Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BCDL 1, 28, 33, 91, 118, 299, Latt. Egyptt. , instead of -, Tisch. WH. RV. BL. , instead of , Tisch. Treg. marg. WH. BL 33, Latt. Egyptt. Treg. RV. D.

5. -And he sent another.

Omit , again, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BCDL 33, mss. Lat. Vet. Egyptt. before instead of , Tisch. Treg. WH. BDL 1, 33, and before same except D.

, , -and many others (they maltreated), beating some, and killing some. The verb to be supplied here has to be taken from the general statement of the treatment of the messengers by the cultivators of the vineyard, as the participles must agree with understood, and denote the several kinds of maltreatment.

There is no doubt that Jesus has in mind here the treatment of the prophets by the rulers and people, of which there is frequent mention by the O.T. writers.3 The parable is thus not an analogy, but an allegory.

6. , -Still (after losing all these), he had one (other to send), a beloved son: he sent him last to them. -they will respect my Son_4 The Son in the allegory represents Jesus himself. The nation, which had rejected Gods servants, the prophets, will finally put to death the Son himself, the Messianic King.

, instead of , Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BC2 L 33, Harcl. (Pesh.). Omit his after , Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BCDL mss. Lat. Vet. Egyptt. Vulg. Pesh. Omit after Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BLX2 13, one ms. Lat. Vet. Pesh.

8. 1-and threw him out of the vineyard. They put this indignity on his body, as this followed the killing.

Insert after , Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. ABCDMN mss. Lat. Vet. Memph. Syrr.

9. ;-What will the master of the vineyard do?

Omit , then, after , Tisch. WH. BL one ms. Lat. Vet. Memph.

-he will come and destroy. According to Mat 21:41, Jesus drew this answer from the chief priests and scribes themselves.

10. 2 ;-And did you not read this Scripture?3

In the original, this stone, rejected by the builders, but become the head of the corner, is Israel itself, rejected by the nations, defeated and exiled, but destined by God for the chief place among them all. The Psalm was sung probably after the return from the exile, when everything indicates that the hopes of the nation were raised to the highest pitch; when it seemed as if God was taking the first step towards the aggrandizement of the chosen people.

4 5-became the head of the corner, denoting the corner stone, which binds together the two sides of the building, and so becomes architecturally the most important stone in the structure. The story that there was a stone in the building of the Temple which had such a history, is unnecessary to account for so natural a metaphor, and evidently arose from the metaphorical use here.

11. -this (corner stone) came from the Lord. evidently refers to . In the original, the feminine is used, but obviously according to Hebrew usage, for the neuter, referring to the event itself as ordered by Jehovah. But the use of the fem. to translate this Heb. fem. is quite without precedent in the N.T., and is unnecessary here, as we have a grammatical reference to the fem. . The meaning is This corner stone came from the Lord, and is wonderful in our eyes.

This use of the passage from the Ps. by Jesus is a very good illustration of the Messianic application of O.T. writings. There can be no doubt from the context that the historical reference is to the people of Israel. But what is said of Israel was a common and proverbial happening, that might come true of any one whose being contained within itself the promise of better things than belonged to his start in life, and is especially true of the truly religious person or nation. Cf. the parable of the mustard seed, and Isa_53. As a principle, therefore, it would apply especially to the Messiah. The question, whether Jesus used the passage according to a common view of his time as directly Messianic, or only as a statement of this principle, depends on our view of him. It seems to be a rational inference, from what we know of Jesus, that he had derived his idea of the Messianic office partly from the O.T., and that that idea is possible only with a rational treatment of the O.T., while the current view of his time would be derived from a literalistic and irrational treatment of it. And in general, we know that he so far transcended his age as to take a spiritual view of the O.T., and there is no reason to suppose that this would not include the rational treatment of a passage like this. That is, Jesus would see in it not a direct reference to himself, but only the statement of a principle applicable to himself.

12. -for they knew that he spoke the parable against them. This is the reason for their seeking to take him, not for their fear of the people. But as the latter statement is the last made, Meyer makes the subject of to be the just mentioned, in which case this would be a reason for their fear of the people. But there is a total absence of anything to indicate such a change of subject in , and this is a greater difficulty than the one which Meyer seeks to remove. Meyers view also deprives the statement of its appositeness.1

The statement that they knew that Jesus spoke this parable against them is conclusive in regard to the meaning of it, and falls in with the parable itself, and with its context, placed as it is in the midst of a controversy between himself and the authorities. It is directed against the Jewish hierarchy, pointing out their sin in rejecting one after another of the prophets, culminating in their murder of the Messiah himself, and predicting their fate in consequence. But Mt., while he makes the same statement, v. 45, about the reference of the parable, makes Jesus say, v. 43, that the kingdom shall be taken from them, and given to a nation producing its fruits. This would seem to make the parable apply to the nation, and not to the hierarchy. Everything else, however, in Mt., as in Mk. and Lk., points to the hierarchy. It seems probable that Mt. therefore, in v. 43, adds to the parable, post eventum, that the nation was to share the fate of its rulers, and be superseded in their theocratic position by another (Gentile) nation. It plainly does not belong here, as the effect would be to bring rulers and people together against Jesus, whereas the statement is repeatedly made that, so far, it is Jesus and the people against the rulers.

THE QUESTION OF PAYING TRIBUTE TO ROME

13-17. Jesus is approached by Pharisees and Herodians with the question whether it is authorized under the theocracy to pay tribute to the Roman emperor, hoping to draw from him an answer, compromising him either with the Roman government or with the people. Jesus answers by pointing to the image and inscription of the emperor on the coin as a proof of their obligation to him, and bids them pay to Csar what belongs to him, and to God what belongs to him.

13. . . -These emissaries were chosen, because they occupied different sides of the question proposed to him. The Pharisees owed their popularity partly to their intense nationality and their hatred of foreign rule. The Herodians, on the other hand, were adherents of the Herods, who owed what power they possessed to the Roman government. Neither party, however, took an extreme position. The Pharisees are not to be confounded with the Zealots; they submitted to the inevitable. Nor is it to be supposed that the Herods had any particular love for the government that had helped them to power, to be sure, but had taken advantage of their weakness to make themselves supreme, and the Herods only their tributaries. Still, as to the question of the paying of tribute, with all the corollaries, they would be divided, and Jesus must offend one, or the other, by his answer. -they may catch him with a word. The word is to be not his own, but their question, artfully contrived to entangle him. The figure is that of the hunter with his net or snare.1

14. -and coming, they say to him.

instead of , Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BCDL 33, mss. Lat. Vet. Egyptt.

This address of his artful enemies is well described in the . The question which they have to propose is one bristling with dangers, but then, they tell him, that is just what you do not care for. You have a sole regard for the truth, not for consequences nor persons. -Teacher. They said Rabbi. -true, i.e. truthful. -and carest not for any one. This shows the particular kind of regard for the truth which they had in mind. It was one which did not stand in fear of man, would not be hindered by awe of kings, not even of the Roman emperor. -for thou dost not look at the person of men; dost not pay attention to those things which belong to outward condition, such as rank or wealth. This is a widening of the meaning of , belonging to the Heb. . -the way of God, the course prescribed for men by God.2 3 4 ;-Is it right to give tribute to Csar or not? This question took on a special form among the Jews, who claimed to be the members of a theocracy, so that paying tribute to a foreigner would seem like disloyalty to the Divine government. The question of policy, or necessity, is kept in the background, and the problem is confined to the rightfulness of paying such tribute. – .5

15. () -But he, knowing (seeing) their dissimulation.

, instead of Tisch. * D 13, 28, 69, 346, mss. Lat. Vet.

-this word has been transliterated into our word hyprocrisy at a great loss of picturesqueness and force. It means acting, from which the transition to the meaning dissimulation is easy. What Jesus knew about these men was, that they were playing a part in their compliments, and their request for advice. They were acting the part of inquirers; really, they were plotters. They were trying to compromise him either with the government or the people. In his trial before Pilate we see what use they intended to make of one of the two answers to which they thought he was reduced. Luk 23:2. ;-why do you try me? Our word tempt, in the sense of solicit to evil, is out of place here.1 What they were doing was to put him to the test maliciously. -a shilling.2

The point of Jesus reply is, that the very coin in which the tribute is paid bears on its face the proof not only of their subjection to the foreign government, but of their obligation to it. Coinage is a privilege claimed by government, but it is one of the things in which the government most clearly represents the interest of the governed. Tribute becomes in this way, not an extortion, or exaction, but a return for service rendered.

17. , -And Jesus said to them, The things belonging to Csar pay to Csar.

, instead of , Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BCL 33, Theb.

-pay. They had said, , give. Jesus makes it a matter of payment. -the things of Csar. Strictly speaking, this means, Pay to the Roman government Roman coin. They themselves were tacitly recognizing the government, and availing themselves of their privileges under it by using its coin, and that left them no pretext for denying its rights. The coin represents simply the right of the government. The image and superscription on it show the government maintaining to the people the position not only of power, but of rights. It is in this, as in all things, the defender of rights. This gives to the government itself rights, of which tribute is representative. But our Lords reply is entirely characteristic. It suggests, rather than amplifies or explains. . . -and the things belonging to God to God. The way in which they had presented the question implied that there was a conflict between the claims of the earthly and heavenly governments. But Jesus shows them as each having claims. Csar has claims, and also God; pay both. The difficulty with the Jews, and with all bodies claiming to represent God, is that they are zealous for him in a partisan way, jealous of his prerogatives, dignities, and the like, and make that do service for a real loyalty to him. These men were eager to assert Gods claim against a foreign king. Jesus was anxious that they should recognize his real claims, those that involved no real conflict, but belonged in the wider sphere of common duties. . -and they wondered. Well they might. Jesus had not only parried their attack, which was a small matter, but had thrown light on a very difficult question. The conflict of duties is one of the perplexities of life, and the question of the relation of the Christian to civil government is often one of the most trying forms of the general problem. Jesus answer is practically, Do not try to make one duty exclude another, but fulfil one so as to consist with all the rest. As far as the special matter is concerned, it recognizes the right of civil government, the obligation of those who live under a theocracy to be subject to civil authority, an obligation not abrogated, but enforced by their duty to God; that the Divine obedience does not exclude, but include other obediences; and finally, that human government, as included thus within the Divine scheme of things, is among the economies to be conformed to its perfect idea.

, instead of , Tisch. WH. RV. B.

JESUS ANSWERS THE PUZZLE OF THE SADDUCEES ABOUT THE RESURRECTION

18-27. The next attack on Jesus comes from another source. The Sadducees, the priestly class, being disbelievers in the resurrection, bring to him what is apparently their standing objection, of a woman having seven husbands here, and ask him whose wife she will be in the resurrection. Jesus answer is in two parts: first, that there is no marriage in the resurrection state; and secondly, that when God calls himself the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, their continued life is implied. Anything else is inconsistent with that relation.

18. -The word denotes the sect as Zadokites. There is little doubt that the word itself comes from this proper name Zadok, and not from , meaning righteous. Probably, the particular Zadok meant is the priest who distinguished himself by his fidelity in the time of David. 2Sa 15:24 sq., 1 K. 1:32 sq. After the return from the exile, among the different families constituting the priesthood, the sons of Zadok seem to have occupied the chief place. They were the aristocracy of the priesthood, and Ezekiel assigns them exclusive rights to its functions. Eze 40:46, Eze 43:19, Eze 44:15, Eze 48:11. The Sadducees, that is to say, were the party of the priests, and especially of the priestly aristocracy. As a school of opinion, they were characterized by the denial of the authority of tradition, maintaining the sole authority of the written Scriptures. As corollaries of this, they denied the resurrection, and the existence of angels or spirits.1 , -and they questioned him, saying.

, instead of , Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BCDL 33, Latt. Pesh. Memph.

19. , -and leave no child, that his brother take the woman.

, instead of , Tisch. Treg. marg. WH. RV. ca BL 1, 18, 241, 299, mss. Lat. Vet. Memph. Omit after , Tisch. Treg. WH. BCL 1, 61, 209, one ms. Lat. Vet. Memph.

This quotation is from Deu 25:5, Deu 25:6. It is introduced in order to show that the law itself provides for these successive marriages, thus expressly legalizing these successive relations, which the resurrection would make simultaneous. Their question is, therefore, whether the same Scriptures teach this, and the resurrection, which is inconsistent with it. The quotation does not attempt to reproduce the language.

21. 2-not having left seed.

, instead of , and neither did he leave, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BCL 33, one ms. Lat. Vet. Egyptt.

22. -and the seven left no seed.

Omit before , Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BCDL * 28, 33, Memph.

This childlessness is specified as the chief element in the indeterminateness of the question, since if either of them had had children, that might have decided the question to whom the woman belonged.

3 -last of all the woman died also.

, instead of , Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BCGHKL 1, 13, 28, 33, 69, mss. Lat. Vet. Egyptt. Pesh.

23. ;-In the resurrection, whose wife shall she be of them? This was probably the standing puzzle of the Sadducees, in which they sought to discredit the resurrection by reducing it to an absurdity.

Omit , therefore, before , Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BC* EF HLSUVX two mss. Lat. Vet. Omit , whenever they arise. Treg. WH. RV. BCDL 28, 33, two mss. Lat. Vet. Egyptt. Pesh.

24. , , , ; Jesus said to them, Is it not on this account that you err, because you know not the Scriptures, nor the power of God? points forward to the ,1 the part. being used causally. What follows in v. 25, 26, develops these two defects in their consideration of the matter. Their ignorance of the power of God is taken up first, in v. 25.

, instead of , Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BCL 33, Memph. Pesh.

25. This verse contains Jesus statement of the power of God in the resurrection. He has power not only to raise, but so to change the body, that marriage ceases to be one of its functions. It was because they were ignorant of this, that the Sadducees thought their case of seven husbands would be an argument against the resurrection.

-whenever they arise. leaves the time of the resurrection indefinite. -denotes the act of the father in bestowing his daughter in marriage.2 -the angels come as a race, not from procreation, but directly from creation. The power of God appears in this, in the transformation and clarifying of the resurrection body, so that marriage is not a part of the future state.

, instead of , Tisch. Treg. WH. BCDGLU 1, 124, 209. Omit after , Tisch. (Treg.) WH. RV. CDFKLMU Memph. Harcl.

26. This verse shows their ignorance of the Scriptures, which speaks of God as the God of their ancestors, language which is inconsistent with their mortality.

3 , 4-in the book of Moses, at the place concerning the bush.

, instead of , before , Tisch. Treg. WH. ABCLX . , instead of , before , Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BCLU 108, 131.

Omit , the, before , and , Treg. WH. RV. BD, two passages in Origen.

27. -Without the art., becomes the pred., not the subj., and is also anarthrous, so that it reads, He is not a God of dead men, but of living.

As this is commonly explained, it is made to hinge on the use of the present, instead of the past. The statement is, he is their God, not he was; and hence, they are still living. But this is a non sequitur, since it is a common expression in regard to both dead and living, and would be taken in the same sense, or used in the same sense, by either Pharisees or Sadducees. But it follows from the nature of God that, when he calls himself the God of any people, certain things are implied in the statement about these people, e.g. that they are righteous, not sinners; blessed, not wretched; and here living, not dead. That is, immortality may be inferred from the nature of God himself in the case of those whom he calls his. But Jesus applies it to the resurrection of the dead generally, and not simply of the righteous dead. What the Sadducees denied was the possibility of the resurrection on materialistic grounds; at the basis of their denial of the resurrection was the other denial of spiritual being.1 But Jesus proves the possibility of the resurrection by examples.2 Notice that Jesus does not reveal the fact of the resurrection, but argues it from acknowledged premises. Given, he says, the fact of God, and the resurrection follows. He recognizes the rational ground of immortality. And what is of more importance, he recognizes the validity of our intuition about God. We can say that certain things may be assumed about him on first principles.

Omit before , Treg. WH. RV. BDKLM marg. . Omit before , Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. ABCDFKLM marg. UX Latt. Egyptt. Pesh.

-you make a great mistake. This concise statement at the close makes an abrupt, but for that reason, forcible ending of the conversation.

Omit , you therefore, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BCL one ms. Lat. Vet. Memph.

A SCRIBE QUESTIONS JESUS CONCERNING THE FIRST COMMANDMENT

28-34. A Scribe, apparently without the usual prejudices of his class, and impressed by his answer to the Sadducees, approaches Jesus with an honest question as to the first of the commandments of the Law. Jesus answers with the quotation from Deut. used at the beginning of morning and evening prayer, affirming the unity of God, and the consequent duty of loving him with an undivided heart. He adds a second command from Lev., bidding the people of God to love their neighbors as themselves. The Scribe assents to this, and adds that obedience to this law of love is a greater thing than all sacrifices. Whereupon, Jesus assures him that he is not far from the kingdom of God. But his enemies are evidently satisfied-they do not dare to question him further.

Judging from the fact, that he was led to put this question by seeing how well Jesus had answered the Sadducees, and from his commendation of our Lords reply to himself, as also from our Lords commendation of his answer, it seems probable that the Scribe did not ask this question in a captious spirit. He thought, Here is possibly an opportunity to get an answer to our standing question, about the first commandment. Mt. states the matter differently, making him one of a group of Pharisees, who gathered about Jesus with the usual purpose of testing him. He also omits the mutual commendation of Jesus and the Scribe.1 Lk. puts this scene at the beginning of Jesus ministry in Southern Palestine. He coincides with Mt. in regard to the purpose of the question, saying that the lawyer .2

28. () , , 3-seeing (knowing) that he answered them well, asked him, What (sort of) commandment is first of all?

, instead of , Tisch. Treg. * CDL 1, 13, 28, 69, mss. Lat. Vet. Vulg. , instead of , Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BCLU 33, 108, 127, 131, Memph. Syrr.

asks about the quality of command, as if the scribe had in mind the different classes of laws. This is indicated also by his reply, v. 33.

29. , -Jesus answered, The first is.

, instead of , Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BL 33, Memph. Pesh. Omit , Tisch. (Treg.) WH. RV. on same authority. , instead of , Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BL Memph.

, , , -Hear, O Israel, The Lord our God, the Lord is one.1 These words, calling the attention of Israel to the oneness of Jehovah, were used at the beginning of morning and evening prayer in the temple, as a call to worship. , Lord, is the translation of the Heb. Yahweh, and it is probable therefore that the second is subject instead of predicate.2 This unity has for its conclusion, that worship is not to be divided among several deities, but concentrated on one.

30. -thou shalt love. Love is the duty of man toward God, and this is in itself a revelation of the nature of God. It is only one who loves who demands love, and only one in whom love is supreme demands love as the supreme duty. He requires of men what is consonant with his own being. -from all the heart. The preposition denotes the source of the love. It is to be from all the heart on the same principle of the unity of God. Being one, he requires an undivided love. This is added to the Sept. statement, which includes only the , , and . The Heb. includes the , but omits . is the general word for the inner man; is the soul, the life-principle, is the mind, and is the spiritual strength. There is no attempt at classification, or exactness of statement, but simply to express in a strong way the whole being.

Omit , this is the first commandment, Tisch. (Treg. marg.) WH. RV. BEL Egyptt.

31. -The second is this.

Omit , And, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BL mss. Lat. Vet. Memph. Omit , like, Tisch. (Treg. marg.) WH. RV. BL Egyptt.

The Scribe did not ask for the second commandment, but the statement is incomplete without it. Our Lord wished to show that this first commandment did not stand at the head of a long list of heterogeneous commands, among which it was simply primus inter pares, but that it was one of two homogeneous commands, which exhausted the idea of righteousness. This second commandment does not stand in the O.T. in the commanding position of the first, but is brought in only incidentally in Lev 19:18, where, moreover, neighbor is evidently restricted to a brother Jew. Jesus puts it in a commanding position, and widens the meaning of neighbor to fellowman. -the degree of the love to God is expressed by from all thy heart; the degree of human love is as thyself. The love of God includes in itself all other affections, but this love of the neighbor has over against it a love of self, with which Jesus allows it to divide the man. This self-love is already there, monopolizing the man, and the command is to subordinate it to the love of God, and to cordinate it with the love of man.

32. , , -Well, teacher! you said truly that he is one. AV. Well, Master; thou didst speak the truth; for, etc. This is not wrong, but what follows is so nearly what Jesus said, that it seems more natural to make it a repetition of that, than a reason for the scribes approval of it. RV. Of a truth, Master, thou hast well said, that, etc. The distribution of the words and of emphasis is against this. It would read .

Omit , God, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. ABKLMSUX one ms. Lat. Vet. many mss. Vulg. Pesh.

-there is no other but he. This addition to Jesus words is taken by the Scribe from Deu 4:35, Deu 4:39. His enumeration of the parts of man entering into the love of God differs again from that of Jesus. The following table shows them all together.

Heb. , , .

Sept. , , .

Jesus. , , , .

Scribe. , , .

But of course, this is a matter of no importance, the two latter representing only the oratio variata of the writer.

33. Omit , and from all the soul, Tisch. (Treg. marg.) WH. RV. BL 1, 118, 209, 299, one ms. Lat. Vet. Memph. , instead of , Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BL 33. Omit before , Treg. WH. ABDX .

-a more eminent thing. The positive expresses the idea of eminence, of surpassing other things, and the comparative denotes a higher degree of this quality. 1-whole burnt offerings.2 These words of the Scribe are an addition to what Jesus says about the superiority of these two commands. Jesus had compared them simply with other laws. The Scribe compares them specially with the laws of sacrifice, after the manner of the prophets.

34. -intelligently.1 . -You are not far from the kingdom of God. The evident enthusiasm with which the Scribe received the statement of Jesus, and his ability to enter into the spirit of it so as to develop it in his own way, showed that he himself could not be far from the kingdom, with whose law he has shown himself to be in sympathy. To be friendly to its ideas, and sympathetic with its spirit, was the next thing to actual submission to it. -no one dared to question him further. The question of the Scribe was friendly, but the whole series of questions to which it belonged was far from friendly; it was captious and hostile, having for its object to destroy the authority of Jesus by showing that he was no more than any other teacher when he came to face the real puzzles of the learned men. But Jesus had shown in his answers no mere mastery of the usual weapons of debate, but a grasp of the principles involved in each case, so that the purpose of his enemies was foiled, and his authority stood stronger than ever. It was no use to ask him questions therefore, which only recoiled on the questioners.

JESUS QUESTION, HOW THE MESSIAH CAN BE BOTH SON AND LORD OF DAVID

35-37. Jesus now raises a question himself. Their questions have been really a challenge of his Messianic claim. His question is a criticism of their Messianic idea. They call the Messiah Son of David, and Jesus asks how the exalted language of the Psalm in which David calls him Lord can be applied to one who is only Davids son.

35. -Answering their questions now by propounding one in his turn. ;-How do the Scribes say ? According to the statement of Mt., he asked the Scribes, What do you think about the Messiah? whose son is he? And when they answered Davids, then he raises his difficulty. This simply emphasizes what is stated also in our account, that this title is treated by him as Rabbinical rather than Scriptural.

This is not a conundrum, a Scriptural puzzle, but a criticism of the Messianic teaching of the Rabbis. By emphasizing his descent from David as the essential thing about him, they were in danger of passing over the really important matter, which made him not so much Davids son, but his Lord. He felt that the title, Son of David, into which the Scribes compressed their conception of the Messianic position, misrepresented by its narrowness the prophetic statement of the Messianic kingdom, and involved in itself all the errors of current Jewish Messianism. And he was conscious himself of a greatness that could not be ascribed to his descent from David, but was the result only of his unique relation to God. Hence his question, which does not intend to match their riddles with another, but is intended to expose the insufficiency of the Messianic idea taught by the Rabbis. For this purpose he selects a passage from Psa_110, which was currently ascribed to David and was classed as Messianic. In this Psalm, so interpreted, David is made to address the Messianic king as his Lord. And the argument is made to hinge on this address-How can David call him Lord, when he is Davids son? Right here, then, we have the gravest difficulty to be encountered anywhere in regard to the N.T. acceptance of the traditional view of the O.T. For criticism rejects the Davidic authorship of this Psalm. It does not allege plain anachronisms, as in many Psalms, e.g. the mention of the temple, or of the destruction of Jerusalem, in Psalms ascribed to David. But there are other signs which point plainly to the great improbability of Davidic authorship. In the first place, it belongs to a group of Psalms, Books IV. and V., of the Psalter, which is evidently of late date; and the reasons would have to be special and obvious which would lead us to detach it from the rest. Whereas, it bears all the marks common to the class. Moreover, if it was written by David, then we have to suppose that there was some person occupying his own position of theocratic king, but so much more exalted than he that he calls him Lord. And this could only be the Messiah, the final flower of the Davidic line, whom David sees in vision. But the Psalm in that case would stand entirely by itself as being simply a vision of an indefinite future, having no roots in the circumstances of the times, whereas all O.T. prophecy is of an immediate future growing directly out of the present. This leads immediately to the conclusion that the Psalm is addressed by the Psalmist to some reigning king, who is also somehow a priest, and that the writer cannot himself be a king. And, finally, the Messianic conception in the time of David had reached no further than this, that his royal line was not to fail, even if his sons and successors proved sometimes unworthy. But the idea of a Messianic king, who was to be the ideal and climax of the Davidic line, and whom David himself could call Lord, was the fruit only of a long period of national disaster, creating the feeling that only such a unique person could restore the national hopes. The idea of a personal Messiah belongs to the period succeeding the close of the canon. This is the essential reason for rejecting the Davidic authorship. How, then, if David did not write the Psalm, can we account for our Lords ascription of it to him? The explanation that will account for all the other cases of this kind, viz., that the authorship is of no account, leaving him free to accept the current view as a mere matter of nomenclature and identification, without committing him to an endorsement of it, will not do here, since the argument turns on the authorship. But the real explanation of all the cases is, that inspiration, which accounts for whatever extraordinary knowledge belonged to Jesus in his earthly life, does not extend to such matters of critical research as authorship. Inspiration belongs to the sphere of the moral and religious intuitions, and did not keep even Jesus from ignorance of matters outside of its sphere. And here, in its proper sphere, it gave him a view of the deeper meaning of Scripture, that led to his declaration that Son of David would come very far from adequately stating their view of the Messianic king. That would include the universalism of the prophets, and the suffering servant of Jehovah of Isaiah. Moreover, it would include a unique relation to God, and to universal manhood, that would place him in a different class from David, and an exalted position, which would be indicated by the titles chosen by himself, Son of Man and Son of God, rather than Son of David.

36. , () 1 -David himself said in the Holy Spirit, the Lord said to my lord.

Omit , for, after , Tisch. Treg. marg. WH. RV. BLTd 13, 28, 59, 69, two mss. Lat. Vet. Memph. Omit before , Treg. WH. BD. B omits it in Sept.

-in the Holy Spirit. This phrase denotes inspiration. David said this with the authority that belongs to an inspired man.1 () -in the original, this is Yahweh (Jehovah), of which is the translation in the Sept.2 -a footstool of thy feet.

, under, instead of , WH. RV.marg. BDgr Td 28, Egyptt.

37. -David himself calls him Lord. This makes the difficulty of their position-how lordship and sonship go together.

Omit , therefore, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BDLTd 28, 106, 251, mss. Lat. Vet. Egyptt.

-the great multitude present at the feast, the multitude being distinguished from the leaders. This statement is parallel to those which represent Jesus, all through this controversy, as carrying the people with him.

WARNING AGAINST THE SCRIBES

38-40. Somewhere in the course of his teaching on this last day of public instruction, Jesus introduces a warning against the Scribes, the religious teachers and leaders of his time. He charges them with ostentation, an unhealthy craving for position and flattery, and a fearful inconsistency between the profuseness of their worship and the cruel meanness of their lives. Their condemnation, he says, will be greater than if they had been consistently wicked.

38. -in the course of his teaching. Mk. does not place this warning exactly. Nor Lk. Mt. says then. All of them introduce it in this place. But the warning is not against those qualities of the Scribes that would be suggested by their misconception of the Messianic idea.

-Beware of.3 -to walk about in long robes. These were the dress of dignitaries, such as kings and priests-long robes reaching to the feet. -salutations of respect.

39. 4-first seats.

1-chief (reclining) places, not rooms, AV. What this chief place at table was, the varying custom prevents our saying.

40. -If this is a continuation of the preceding sentence, the nom. is an irregularity, as its noun is in the Gen_2 It is better, therefore, to begin a new sentence here, making the subj. of -those who devour, etc., shall receive.3 This devouring of widows houses would be under the forms of civil law, but in contravention of the Divine law of love. -for a covering. That is, they tried to hide their covetousness behind a show of piety. See 1Th 2:5, where the meaning is, that the apostle did not use his preaching of the Gospel as a mere cloak of covetousness. -more abundant, or overflowing condemnation. The adjective is strong. The comparison is with what they would receive if they made no pretence of piety. Notice that the show, as it is commonly with men, is of religion, while the offence is against humanity. The warning is addressed to the people, and bids them beware of religious leaders who affect the outward titles and trappings of their office, and offset their lack of humanity by a show of piety.

The exact verbal correspondence of Mk. and Lk. in this warning is proof positive of their interdependence.

JESUS COMMENDATION OF THE WIDOWS OFFERING

41-44. The day closes with a scene in the treasury of the temple. Jesus is watching the multitude casting their offerings into the trumpet-shaped mouths of this receptacle, and among them many rich men casting in much. But there is one poor widow, who casts in two small coins, worth about a third of a cent, and Jesus commends her as having given more than all the rest. They, he says, gave out of their excess; she, out of her lack, gave all her living.

41. -And having taken a seat over against the treasury.

Omit , Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BL two mss. Lat. Vet. Memph.

-treasury.1 The treasury meant is probably that in the outer court of the temple, having thirteen openings shaped like trumpets, for the reception of temple offerings and of gifts for the poor. -literally, brass, but, like the Latin s, a general word for all money. -were casting, denoting the repeated act.

42. -one widow; contrasted with the many rich. , -the was the eighth part of an as, the value of which was one and two-thirds cents, so that two were about two-fifths of a cent. is the Latin word quadrans, meaning a quarter of an as. But the real value appears only from the fact that the denarius, or ten asses, was a days wages.

43. , , -said to them, Verily I say to you, that this poor widow cast in more than all who are casting into the treasury.

, instead of , Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. ABDKLU , two mss. Lat. Vet. Egyptt. Syrr. , instead of , Treg. WH. RV. c (* ) ABDL 33 , instead of , Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. ABDLX .

-cast in more than all who are casting. This is a case where the use of the comp., instead of the superl., is misleading, as the superl. means most of them all, whereas the comp. strictly means more than all together.

44. -This expression is the exact opposite of , one meaning more than enough, and the other less than enough; excess and deficiency. RV. superfluity and want. -all her living, her resources. The idea of is that they did not trench on their resources, but gave a part only of what they had over and above that, while the poor widow gave all her resources. Hence, while the real value of their gifts was many times greater than hers, the ideal value of hers was the greatest of them all. Money values are not the standard of gifts in the kingdom of God, but only these ideal values. It is only as the gift measures the moral value of the giver, that it counts with him who looks at the heart.

It is noticeable that Mk. closes his account of this stormy scene in the Temple with this idyl. The connection is not the verbal and superficial relation to the widows of v. 40, but the contrast between the outward meagreness and inward richness of the widows service, and the outward ostentation and inward barrenness of the Pharisees religion.

Tisch. Tischendorf.

Treg. Tregelles.

WH. Westcott and Hort.

RV. Revised Version.

Codex Sinaiticus.

B Codex Vaticanus.

G Codex Wolfi A.

L Codex Regius.

Codex Sangallensis

1 .Codex Basiliensis

13 Codex Regius.

69 Codex Leicestrensis.

346 Codex Ambrosianus.

Lat. Vet. Vetus Latina.

Egyptt. Egyptian Versions.

Pesh. Peshito.

Harcl. Harclean.

marg. Revided Version marg.

1 See 11:33, 12:12.

2 Mat 21:43, Mat 21:45.

3 Luk 20:9, Luk 20:19.

4 AV. wine-fat. Fat is an old English word for vat. RV., pit for the winepress.

5 This vb. is common in Grk., but occurs in N.T. only in this parable in the Synoptics. The irregular form, for , is also repeated.

AV. Authorised Version.

A Codex Alexandrinus.

C Codex Bezae.

K Codex Cyprius.

N Codex Purpureus.

33 Codex Regius.

1 means they flayed him, literally. This modified meaning, they beat him, does not belong to the best usage, though it is found sometimes from Aristophanes down.

D Codex Ephraemi.

Memph. Memphitic.

2 is evidently a corrupt form of , and that word is treated as if it came from , instead of . Properly, it means to bring under heads, to summarize, but here, apparently, to wound in the head. It occurs only here in the N.T. Thay.-Grm. Lex.

28 Codex Regius.

Latt. Latin Versions.

3 2Ch 36:15, 2Ch 36:16, Neh 9:26, Jer 25:3-7.

4 On the use of the acc., instead of the regular dat., see Win. 32, 1 b, a.

Vulg. Vulgate.

1 On this use of the adv. as a prep., see Win. 54, 6.

M Codex Campianus.

Codex Tischendorfianus

Codex Petropolitianus

Syrr. Syriac Versions.

2 On the meaning of without a preceding negative, see Win. 55, 6, 2.

3 The passage is Psa 118:22, Psa 118:23.

4 A translation of the Heb. . Win. 29, 3 a.

5 A translation of the Heb. .

1 See Win. 61, 7b.

1 Thay.-Grm. Lex.

2 This use of is familiar in the Heb. but uncommon, though not unknown, in the Greek.

3 is the Latin word census, meaning a registration of persons and property on which taxation is based. In the N. T., it denotes the tax itself.

4 -there is a mixture here of the personal and the titular use of this name. As a title of the Roman emperors, it takes the article properly.

5 is used in the first question, because it is one of objective fact. in the second, because it is a question of proposed action, subjective. Win. 55, 1 a.

1 See RV. American readings. Classes of Passages.

2 Penny, EV. is specially misleading, since the denarius had not only the nominal value of our shilling, but a far greater relative value, as it was a days wages. The denarius was a Roman coin, equivalent to ten asses, a ten as piece.

Theb. Thebaic.

1 See Schrer, II. 2, 26, II.

209 An unnamed, valuable manuscript.

2 is used here, instead of , because the denial is in some way subjective. gives it something the tone of so the story goes.

3 is here an adv. and denotes the last of a series of events, and its conjunction with denoting persons is therefore incongruous. Hence the substitution of by some copyist. Cf. 1Co 15:8.

H Codex Wolfi B.

E Codex Basiliensis.

F Codex Borelli.

S Codex Vaticanus.

U Codex Nanianus.

V Codex Mosquensis.

1 is the negative used, because the statement is made by Jesus as a conjecture, of which he asks their opinion.

2 See 1Co 7:38. is a Biblical word.

3 is originally the name of the papyrus plant, from which paper was made, and then a book or scroll. The quotation is from Exo 3:6.

4 The use of is analogous to that with the gen. of persons or things to locate an event by its connection with some person or thing; at the passage which tells about the bush. Win. 47, g, d.

1 See Act 23:8.

2 Compare Pauls proof of the resurrection by the case of Jesus. 1Co 15:12 sqq.

1 Mat 22:34-40.

2 Luk 10:25-37.

3 On the gender of , see Win. 27, 6. On this use of with superlative, the only case in N.T., See Win. 36, note.

1 Deu 6:4, Deu 6:5. This is quoted just as it stands in the Sept.

2 See Deu 6:4, RV.marg.

1 The classical Greek has the verb , to burn whole, but this word is confined to the Bible and to Philo.

2 See Psa 40:6, Psa 51:16, Psa 50:8-15, Isa 1:11, Hos 5:6.

1 This word does not occur elsewhere in the N.T.

1 On without the art. See Win. 19, 1 a.

T fragment of Lectionary.

1 Mt. says . This is the only case of the use of this phrase in the Gospels.

2 This passage is quoted from the Sept. without change.

3 See on 8:15.

4 This word is found only here and in the parallel passages from Mt. and Lk. in the N.T., and elsewhere, in ecclesiastical writings.

1 This word is also found only in the parallel accounts of this discourse, and in ecclesiastical writings.

2 See Win., who treats it as an annex with an independent structure. 59, 8 b, 62, 3.

3 So Grotius, and following him, Bengel, Meyer, and others.

1 A Scriptural word, of which the first part is a Persian word for treasure.

Fuente: International Critical Commentary New Testament

Jesus Silences His Enemies

Mar 12:1-27

Our Lord reviews the history of the theocracy. He recounts the long roll of Gods servants who had been persecuted and misused from the first to the last, including Himself. In doing so, He openly implied that He was the Son of God and made the Pharisees realize how clearly He foresaw the fate which they were preparing for Him. They were accustomed to apply Psa 118:22 to the Messiah, and recognized at once what Jesus meant, when He claimed it as an emblem of His own rejection.

How admirably our Lord defined the relations of His Kingdom to the civil power! If we accept Caesars protection and ordered government we are bound to maintain it by money payment and such other service as conscience permits. This indeed is part of our duty to God; and with equal care we must give Him the dues of the spiritual world.

Jesus silenced the Sadducees by a quotation from the Pentateuch, whose authority they admitted. God could not be the God of persons not in existence. Therefore since He used the present tense of His relationship with the patriarchs in speaking to Moses three hundred years after their death, they must have been still in existence.

Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary

Parable of the Vineyard (Mar 12:1-12)

This parable portrayed in a very vivid and graphic manner Gods ways with Israel and their response and ingratitude throughout the past centuries. In the rejection and death of the heir we see the consummation of our Lords ministry, to be followed by His glorious resurrection.

The vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel (Isa 5:7). Settled by God in the land of Canaan, the Israelites had been cared for in a marvelous way. God had placed them under the care of those who should have watched for their souls and sought to cultivate them spiritually so that there would be abundant fruit for Him. But the husbandmen, or vine-dressers, thought only of their own selfish interests. They failed to render to Jehovah that love and reverence which He had the right to expect. When He sent His prophets to them they either sent [them] away empty (treated them with utter indifference) or else persecuted them even unto death for daring to reprove them because of their wickedness. Throughout the centuries this had been the attitude of the husbandmen. Now God had sent His Son as the final test of the love and loyalty of Israel. When the leaders saw Him they spurned His claim and sought His destruction. They said, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours.

Mar 12:8 is prophetic and was fulfilled just a few days later. They took him, and killed him, and cast him out of the vineyard. It was thus that Jesus told them of His own rejection and death even before it came to pass.

Then He put the question to them: What shall therefore the lord of the vineyard do? The answer was plain: He will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others. Israel was to be set to one side while grace would flow out to the Gentiles.

This prophecy was in accord with what was written in Psa 118:22: The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner. So He spoke not only of death but of resurrection, because as the first begotten from the dead Jesus has been made the chief corner stone. This was the Lords doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes.

The parable and its application stirred the leaders to additional resentfulness. They realized He had spoken of them, but for the time being they dared not proceed against Him openly because they feared the reaction of the people generally.

Lesson on Paying Taxes (Mar 12:13-17)

The question of the tribute money was a live one throughout Palestine. To pay this tax was a tacit acknowledgment of Romes authority, something that was thoroughly repugnant to Jews of strong nationalistic feeling. The Herodians and some others advocated this recognition of the imperial government because of special favor they hoped to get by their subservience.

It was not any desire to know the right or wrong of the matter that led the representatives of the two opposed schools of thought (the Pharisees and the Herodians) to put the question to Jesus, Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not? Despite their flattering way of addressing Him they were only setting a trap for Him. They hoped to ensnare Him into saying something that would give occasion either to accuse Him to their Roman overlords as an advocate of sedition, or to make it appear to the more intensely patriotic Jews that He had no sympathy with them in their yearning for deliverance from the Roman yoke.

Why tempt ye me? bring me a penny [a denarius], that I may see it. His reply revealed that He saw into their hearts and knew exactly why they had come to Him.

When they handed one of the coins to Him, He inquired, Whose is this image and superscription? They replied, Caesars. He said to them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesars, and to God the things that are Gods. Thus they fell into the pitfall they had digged for His feet. They were amazed at His answer and were silenced so far as that subject was concerned.

Lesson on the Resurrection (Mar 12:18-27)

A group of Sadducees sought to entangle Jesus this time. They represented a materialistic sect that denied the resurrection and the existence of angels and spirits. Whether the story they put before Him was true or not we cannot say. It seems most unlikely, and may only have been an imaginary tale designed to cast ridicule on the doctrine of the resurrection.

According to the levirate order, if a man died leaving no heir his brother was to take the widow to be his own wife. The first child born of the new union would inherit the estate of the former husband. In the story the Sadducees told Jesus, this law was carried to an extreme. They said a certain woman had been wife to seven brothers in succession and had outlived them all. Seven brothers died one after the other and all were childless.

These cunning quibblers then presented what they evidently considered an unanswerable refutation of the resurrection of the dead. They asked, as recorded in Mar 12:23, In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife.

Jesus was unperturbed, for He saw through their sophistry at once. He declared they were all in error for two reasons-their ignorance of the very Scripture which they professed to hold sacred, and their ignorance of the power of God. It was the Torah alone-that is, the books of Moses-that these Sadducees recognized as authoritative. So Jesus quoted from the book of Exodus in order to show the folly of their position.

The Sadduccees denied the possibility of resurrection because they taught that the soul of man died with the body. Jesus explained that those who are physically dead are alive unto God, and that when the dead rise they do not again take up the same conditions that they knew on earth. They do not resume the marital state, but are as the angels in Heaven-sexless beings who do not have the power of reproducing their kind. The distinctions between man and woman will be done away in the resurrection. In the eternal condition following the rising from the dead, marriage will have no place. Each person will be a distinct individual capable of endless bliss or woe, but human relationships as we know them here will be ended.

Our Lord appealed to two great reasons for accepting the fact that the dead will rise. It is revealed in the Bible, which is Gods inspired Word, and the resurrection rests on the power of the omnipotent God. When God has spoken, it is not for man to reason, but to accept His declaration with reverence. To ask how anything can be done because it is contrary to the ability of finite creatures is to forget that all power belongs to God, with whom nothing is impossible (Luk 18:27).

God spakesaying, I am the God of Abraham, andIsaac, andJacob. He did not say, I was their God, but, I am their God. He spoke of them as definite personalities related to Him by grace though their bodies had died long ago. In His own time they would rise again and be acknowledged as His own.

He is not the God of the dead. If these patriarchs were reduced to unconsciousness or annihilated by death, He would not still be their God. But all live unto him (Luk 20:38). Though they are dead as to the body and hidden from the eyes of men, the God of the spirits of all flesh (Num 16:22) sees and knows everyone in his present state even when he is between death and resurrection. Jesus answer was a crushing blow to the crass materialism of the Sadducees, and they found no words with which to make a reply.

The Scriptures teach not merely the survival of the soul after the body dies (Mat 10:28). They also teach the literal physical resurrection unto life, or else a resurrection unto judgment (Joh 5:28-29). Resurrection is not reincarnation in some other form, as held by certain oriental mystics and their misguided occidental followers, but an actual rising from the dead of the very same person who died. Our Lord Himself came out of the grave in the same body that had hung on the cross. His resurrected body still bore the marks of His crucifixion (Joh 20:20; Joh 20:27). In like manner death will yield up the bodies of all men, even those that have long since been reduced to their chemical elements, for our God is the God of resurrection. He who created these bodies with all their marvelous powers can reassemble them when the time comes for the saved to be caught up to meet the Lord (1Th 4:13-17). He can do the same later for the wicked when the time comes for them to rise and stand before the great white throne for judgment (Rev 20:11-14). Surely nothing should have a more solemnizing effect on us as we remain in this world than the knowledge that this life is only a prelude for that which is to come. Life after death will last forever-either in the joy of Heaven or amid the sad and gloomy horrors of Hell. Faithfully Jesus Christ portrayed both aspects of the life beyond the grave, that none might presume or be deceived by the vain hope of a happy immortality if living and dying in sin. He would have all men remember that there are two resurrections, and following these, two destinies. Thus we learn the importance of receiving Christ now that we may be assured of joy hereafter.

Lesson on the Great Commandment (Mar 12:28-34)

The scribe who next came to question Jesus seems to have been an honest man of different character from the crafty hecklers who preceded him. He had been impressed by the sincerity of Jesus Christ and the clearness of His answers to the questions of others. He came inquiring, Which is the first commandment of all? He meant first in importance, not first in order.

Jesus answered The Lord our God is one Lord: and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength. In these words from Deu 6:4-5 our Lord epitomized all the commandments that deal specifically with mans duty toward God. He who loves God supremely will not willingly dishonor Him in anything. The second commandment-Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself- was cited from Lev 19:18. It epitomizes all the precepts that have to do with mans duty toward other men. He who loves his neighbor will not desire to wrong him.

Master, thou hast said the truth. The scribe was deeply impressed, and at once declared his sincere appreciation of the answer the Lord Jesus had given. He had affirmed the unity of the godhead. All Scripture-taught Jews held this as a cardinal truth. The scribe went on, To love himand to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices. The scribe showed real spiritual discernment. Nothing in the sacrificial ritual of the law was of any value in the sight of God if love were lacking. To love Him and to love ones neighbor wholeheartedly pleases God above all else.

Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. With all his appreciation of the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ, this scribe was not yet in the kingdom. He was, as it were, just outside the door. To step in he must receive Christ for himself-trust Him as Savior and own Him as Lord.

In the next instance it is Jesus Himself who asks the question and confounds His adversaries.

Lesson on Jesus Identity (Mar 12:35-40)

It was a matter of common knowledge in Israel that the Messiah would be a son of David. Gods promise to the psalmist-king was There shall not fail thee (said he) a man on the throne of Israel (1Ki 2:4; Psa 132:11). It is true that this promise depended on the seed of David walking in obedience to the Word of the Lord, but an unconditional promise had also been made, as set forth in Psa 89:1-4; Psa 89:34-37. The teachers in Israel were right therefore in declaring that Christ-that is, Messiah (the Anointed)-was to be the Son of David. But they were ignoring other Scriptures that indicated He would also be the Son of God. So Jesus challenged them by drawing their attention to Psalm 110 and asking for an explanation. How say the scribes that Christ is the son of David? For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The Lord [Jehovah] said to my Lord [Adonai], Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Jesus proceeded to elucidate this passage by pointing out that it was the Messiah of whom David had spoken, and whom he acknowledged as his Lord. A divine person was to sit on the throne of the eternal-on the right hand of the Majesty on high. How then could such a one be Davids son? We know the answer. They did not, and were afraid to attempt an explanation. Jesus is both son of David in His humanity, and Son of God in His divine nature. He was begotten in the womb of the virgin, without a human father. The whole mystery of the incarnation is wrapped up in this quotation from Psalm 110.

The common people were delighted by Christs teaching and even seemed to enjoy the discomfiture of the scribes, whose manner of life was so contrary to their profession. Jesus warned the populace against the evil influence of these religious leaders. They loved to be conspicuous and to be lauded and admired for their apparent piety. Their garb marked them as a special class presumably worthy of recognition such as others did not merit. They appeared in long clothing and were pleased when they were the objects of the adulation of the common people. They loved the chief seats in the synagogues, and the best places at the feasts. The assumption was that these scribes were worthy of particular recognition because of their office, whatever their lives might be. Who can fail to see in all this the pretentiousness of clericalism?

The scribes were grasping and covetous, devouring widows houses-that is, lending money on mortgage to needy widows and confiscating their property when they were unable to meet their obligations promptly. Yet all was done legally, so that the scribes would be above the charge of fraud. They covered their extortionate behavior and maintained an appearance of great piety by making long prayers in public places.

But a reckoning day is coming when all the secret things of the heart will be brought to light. Hypocrites such as these will receive just retribution.

Lesson on Giving (Mar 12:41-44)

Following the denunciation of those who obtained riches unjustly, Jesus took occasion to commend the generosity of a poor widow, who may have been one of those despoiled by the scribes.

Jesus sat over against the treasury. He does this still. He takes note of all that is given for the maintenance of the testimony of God and the relief of human wretchedness. It is evident that a box for contributions was placed at or near one of the entrances to the temple courts. There the faithful might put their gifts for the upkeep of the worship and service of the Lord. The poor widow came and threw in two mites, which make a farthing, possibly all she had earned that day by hard work in the service of some rich family. Jesus looked on and observed how the people cast money into the treasury. He took note of the amounts put in and the manner in which this was done. Doubtless many gave very ostentatiously, anxious that others should give them credit for great generosity.

Heavens method of computing values is altogether different from earths method. We are accustomed to judge by the amount given. The Lord estimates the value of the gift by the amount one has left! So Jesus testified, I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury. He proceeded to show how He arrived at so amazing a conclusion. The rich had given out of their abundance. After making their contributions they had vast sums left to use as they chose. But the widow had held back nothing. She had cast in all her living-that is, all her earnings for the entire day. Such is Heavens way of recognizing gifts for the work of the Lord.

Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets

Mar 12:17

I. The questioners here, we are told, were the Pharisees and the Herodians. With the Pharisees we are well acquainted. Of the Herodians we know nothing, except what this incident reveals. Whether they were a religious sect or a political party, we are not informed. Their name only shows that they were favourable to the ascendancy of Herod, and Herod’s family. The Pharisees and the Herodians alike must have had a genuine interest in the question which they asked, “Is it lawful to give tribute to Csar, or not.” It was not a mere speculative question; it was a direct, pressing, personal, practical matter. It was a question which a perfectly sincere but somewhat bigoted Pharisee might have asked. But these men were not sincere. The evangelist speaks of their craftiness-their hypocrisy. Our Lord addresses them as hypocrites. Their object was not to solve their own difficulties, but to involve Christ in difficulties.

II. Our Lord’s reply is not direct, not “Yes,” nor “No.” He asks for a penny, a denarius, the common silver coin of the day. What do they see there? The broad brow, the laurel crown, the stern, cruel, impenetrable visage of Tiberius, the reigning emperor, or perhaps the singularly handsome regular features of his predecessor, the now deified Augustus. And this portraiture, this name thus stamped on the coin, is, in some sense, a mark of ownership. It comes from Csar’s mint and must be restored to Csar’s exchequer. Our Lord declares, not, indeed, the divine right of Augustus or Tiberius, not the divine right of kings or emperors, nor yet the divine right of democracies, but the divine right of established governments, the divine right of law and order. The argument would have been just as valid, if, instead of Augustus or Tiberius, the head of the Roman republic had been stamped upon that coin.

III. When, having first asked, “Whose image is this?” Our Lord closes with the injunction, “Render to God the things that are God’s,” is it too much to infer that the connecting link between the symbol and the application was the familiar text at the beginning of Genesis, “In the image of God created He him.” In the second creation the same image was restamped upon us. The blessed lines were resharpened as we passed once again through the mint of God. The obverse is still the face of God, while the reverse is the cross of Christ! “Render to God the things that are God’s.”

Bishop Lightfoot, Penny Pulpit (New Series), No. 971.

References: Mar 12:17.-J. G. Rogers, Christian World Pulpit, vol. vi., pp. 392, 402; vol. vii., pp. 24, 36; G. W. Shalders, Ibid., vol. xiii., p. 199. Mar 12:18-27.-H. M. Luckock, Footprints of the Son of Man, p. 269; W. Hanna, Our Lord’s Life on Earth, p. 394. Mar 12:24, Mar 12:25.-W. Gresley, Parochial Sermons, p. 381. Mar 12:24-27.-J. J. Murphy, Expositor, 2nd series, vol. iv., p. 102. Mar 12:26, Mar 12:27.-Preacher’s Monthly, vol. iv., p. 116.

Mar 12:27

I. Man the worker, who knows all the labour, all the skill of work, thinks much of work. Man the seer, who gathers in all his knowledge by sight, thinks much of sight. Man the speaker, who carries on all his projects by speech, thinks much of speech. And deeds done, and things seen, and powers of speech, so possess the world, so fill up its space, that few ever stop to examine what more there may be, and whether works and sight and speech are indeed the grand realities they claim to be; the all in all, which their size and pretensions make them seem to be. Men deal with themselves in the same way. They take the things done and seen, the words and actions, and call them their lives. And a great man is a man who has made a great noise in the world by the rush of his thoughts, or his words, or his deeds, and his life is written, strange contradiction of terms, his life is written, a catalogue that is of the most important sayings of the man, with the writer’s reflections of them; I do not say that more can be done in writing; neither do I say that it is not sometimes good to do this; but to call it a man’s life, that is indeed a curious trick of language, a strange untruth.

II. What is a man’s life? The life, I mean, which really is himself; the life which, for good or evil, moves in the world; that life of which it is said, “Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he reap.” Let me draw your attention to all having it. All in God’s kingdom have God’s life. This was what stirred the heathen world so when the first message of life came. Philosophy, if true, only touched a few learned, favoured men, whilst the whole world lay in emptiness and misery and hunger of soul. They knew what it was to have life offered to all. What then is life in its practical human sense? I answer, practically, life is not doing, but bearing; life is the inward patience which every minute is content to bear what that minute brings to be borne, whether it bring movement or non-movement, work to be done or the waiting without work. The readiness to bear and obey is life. Life lives, is always living, always quietly waiting on its day, gently bearing each little annoyance, and so learning to bear; firmly meeting each little task, and so learning to work; and so at length the hero is made God’s hero, the man who bears and does all things gently, easily, lovingly; and men marvel, as time passes, how silently he has taken his place in the hearts of men; and when he is gone, even like his Lord, he becomes known in the parting, in the evening, and hearts burn within them as they think of him.

E. Thring, Church of England Pulpit, vol. ix., p. 209.

Reference: Mar 12:28-34.-R. Lee, Sermons, p. 156.

Mar 12:29-30

The Ideal of Christian Consecration.

Notice:-

I. The character of the love of God. It is not necessary that we should accurately determine the philosophical signification of the words-heart, soul, mind, and strength or might, in the Hebrew of Deuteronomy, or the Greek of Mark. Briefly, Christ is saying that the whole man must be enlisted in our love of God. (1) God claims from us a warm personal affection. Nothing will make up to God for the want of affection. The highest appreciation, the noblest worship, is that of love. (2) God must be loved for His moral excellence. Not only must our conscience approve our affection; it will be ever supplying us with new material for exalted worship. The sense of His righteousness will kindle gratitude into adoration; passionate desire after God will become enthusiasm for God as our moral sensibilities are disciplined to the perception of His holiness. (3) God claims from us, moreover, an intelligent affection. We must know whom we worship and wherefore we worship Him. Truth is a prime element of reverence, and reason and understanding have as their function to guide us in the knowledge of the truth. (4) God claims from us that we love Him with all our strength. The whole force of our character is to be in our affection for Him.

II. The unity of spiritual life in this love. The command of the text is introduced by a solemn proclamation, “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord.” Consider the infinite worthiness of God. He is the source and object of all our powers. There is not a faculty which has not come from Him, which is not purified and exalted by consecration to Him. As all our powers make up one man-reason and conscience, emotion and will uniting in a complete human life-so for spiritual harmony and religious satisfaction there must be full consecration and discipline of all our powers.

III. The grounds and impulses of this love. In reality it was but one reason-God is worthy of it; and the impulse to render it comes directly from our perception of His worthiness and the knowledge that He desires it from us. The claim for love, like all the Divine claims, is grounded in the character of God Himself, and it takes the form of commandment here because the Jews were “under the law.”

A. Mackennal, The Life of Christian Consecration, p. 1, (see also Christian World Pulpit, vol. viii., p. 200).

References: Mar 12:29.-R. Lee, Sermons. p. 169. Mar 12:29, Mar 12:30.-R. Molyneux, Church of England Pulpit, vol. xiv., p. 279. Mar 12:29, Mar 12:31.-Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. xix., p. 93; R. Lee, Sermons, p. 197. Mar 12:30.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. iii., No. 162; R. Lee, Sermons, p. 183.

Mar 12:30-31

The True Application of Christian Doctrines.

I. Jesus came, first, to teach men of God. Without this knowledge man can never understand himself, either as to his nature, his duties, or his possibilities. Jesus taught men, (1) that God is Spirit, (2) that man is spirit also, (3) that between us and God is the relationship of child to parent, for He revealed unto human kind the Fatherhood of Deity.

II. Jesus gave great instruction touching the destiny of man. The doctrine of immortality had many disciples before He came. But it is none the less true that Jesus brought life and immortality to light. He brought life to light because He put a proper definition on it. And by Himself living rightly, the first man that had ever done it, he showed all men what life was and what it meant. He brought immortality to light in His resurrection from the grave. His descent to, and His ascent from, the place of the dead, demonstrated that the living die not at all; demonstrated that the body is one thing and the life within another; demonstrated that the flesh alone is corruptible, but that the spirit is beyond touch or taint of mortality.

III. There is very little speculation among people touching the teachings of Jesus, and the reason is, because His teachings are too plain to leave anything in doubt; and where there is no doubt there can be no speculation. What Paul meant you can speculate about; for Paul saw things as through a glass, darkly. But what Jesus meant you cannot speculate about, for He saw the truth face to face, and His statements are transparent. All, therefore, that remains for us to do, touching the teachings of Jesus, is to apply them to the government of our lives. The teachings of the Master are, therefore, practical; and they are of actual service to you and me, provided that we have a desire to live rightly; and this living rightly includes both our treatment of ourselves and our treatment of others. If you read the sayings of Jesus, you will find that He had an exalted opinion of man. Other men in His name have spoken meanly of man. Jesus never spoke meanly of him. He always graded men up, never down. He could see in man not only something worth saving, but something that was so valuable that it justified Him in dying to save it. Contemplate Calvary in the light which it throws upon yourself. If you are what it reveals you to be, how nobly you should live.

W. H. Murray, The Fruits of the Spirit, p. 246.

References: Mar 12:31,-R. Duckworth, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xviii., p. 193; R. Lee, Sermons, p. 228; J. H. Thom, Laws of Life after the Mind of Christ, 2nd series, p. 300.

Mar 12:32

The Divine Echo in the Human Heart.

God’s word may be received controversially, speculatively, or lovingly; men may argue about it, or let it argue with them to their conviction and redemption. Take for example the doctrine, Man is a sinner. You may make it a matter of controversy, and by all the poor devices of self-conceit may endeavour to escape its consequences; it may be met with flat denial, or received with many modifications. But take it into the heart, when the heart is in its best mood, ponder it when far from the influence of the world’s excitement and flattery, and say whether there be not a voice which responds affirmatively to the tremendous charge. Take again the doctrine, Man needs a Saviour. It is possible to meet such a doctrine in a captious and resentful spirit; it denies the possibility of self-redemption; it dismisses all the fancies which the soul has been treasuring, and shows man his poverty and weakness. But take it also into the heart under circumstances which allow it to be carefully considered, and say whether there be not a voice answering God’s appeal, with “Well, Master, Thou hast said the truth.” We do not ask for the acceptance of doctrines which ignore or override the instincts and experience of the world; on the contrary, Christianity addresses itself to the intuitions of every man. What are the practical consequences of our having this responsive faculty?

I. Man is made a co-worker with God; not a machine, but a co-operating agent. This gives confidence to personal hope and authority to personal teaching.

II. Man enjoys the restraints of conscience. Upon practical morals man is his own Bible; he carries an unwritten law which warns him from forbidden ground. The conscience is God’s witness to our apostasy. The Bible appeals to it, and works with its full consent.

III. God bases His judgment upon the responsive faculty. The judgment day will be short, because every man will be his own witness.

Parker, Pulpit Analyst, vol. v., p. 603.

Mar 12:34

It was one of the many instances in which Jesus took a very kind view-and saw, and was not afraid to say that He saw-the good that was in everyone. Many perhaps see it, who do not think it well to say that they see it. You need not be afraid. True praise never does any harm. On the contrary, it softens and humbles.

I. But there is a much higher lesson than this, contained in the kindliness of our Saviour’s conduct. If any of you are ever inclined to think of God as a faultfinder-as One who is quick to see what is wrong and who does not see and appreciate what is good in us-read the accounts of Christ’s intercourse with those among whom He was thrown; and you will unlearn your false estimate of that kind, loving, hopeful heart.

II. The text shows clearly that there is a kingdom of God in this world, and that it has distinct boundary lines. These boundary lines do not shade off, so that either it should be impossible to say whether you are in it or not in it, or that you can be partly in it and partly not in it. The words evidently convey the contrary: you may be “near” it, or you may be far from it, but either you are in it, or you are out of it. And now the question necessarily forces itself upon us, What was there in this man which made Christ speak of him as “Near to the kingdom” of His grace. (1) This scribe spoke practically and sensibly and without prejudice-as Christ expresses it, “discreetly.” And the evangelist gives this as the very reason for our Saviour’s judgment about him. (2) It is plain that he saw before his age and generation, the true, relative value of the types and ceremonies of the Jewish Church. He recognised them as entirely inferior to the great principles of truth and love. (3) His mind had travelled so far as to see that the sum and substance of all religion is love, first to God, and then, growing out of it, to man. (4) And perhaps, still more than all, that enlightened Jew had been attracted and drawn near to the person of Christ. Consequently he consulted Him as a teacher, “Which is the first commandment of all?” and when Christ had solved the question, he gave his ready assent, and hailed Him as the great exponent of the mind of God. “Well, Master, Thou hast said the truth”-his intellect following where his faith had led the way, to one centre, and that centre-Christ.

J. Vaughan, Fifty Sermons, 4th series, p. 293.

Mar 12:34

Nearness to the Kingdom of God.

Consider:-

I. In what this nearness consists. The current idea is that we are not far from the kingdom of God if we stand in any kind of touch or connection with it. But nearness to the kingdom of God implies more than this; it implies an inward connection, a motion of the heart, a drawing of the soul towards it. When indifference to Christ, the Sovereign of this kingdom, or to God Himself, still rules in any human heart, it were indeed unfitting to speak of nearness. We enter the kingdom of heaven through conversion. We are not far from the kingdom of God when we are awakened by God, but still unconverted. Conversion is in its essential nature a new birth, and to be not far from the kingdom of God is to be on the way to the new birth, but not yet born again.

II. What is the worth of the nearness to the kingdom of God which we have described. It is a great thing to be near the kingdom; but is an unsatisfactory, we might rather say, a dangerous, condition. (1) Of what use is it to stand on the frontiers of God’s kingdom? Of what use to see the promised land from afar, and to know that for us it is lost for ever? Of what use was it to Agrippa to have said to Paul: “Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian? (2) But not only for the individual, for the kingdom itself, this state of being not far off is less advantageous than we might have supposed. We might fancy that it would greatly further the advancement of that kingdom that there should be many standing, not indeed within, but at the doors. But the result has been that the kingdom of God has been despised. Men have thought that it was leaving the world as it was, that it had brought a shadowy kingdom of heaven upon earth, but never a true one. And they have said: Let us keep to the path on which we travelled before. Open scorners and mockers have not done nearly so much to injure Christianity in the opinion of men as those who stop halfway, and do not let their light shine before men.

III. But even amongst those who are not far from the kingdom there are different classes. A wide distinction may be drawn between those who feel an impulse drawing them to enter the kingdom, and those who are contented where they are. The noblest natures and the most honest minds have often to struggle long, and to wait for the seal of their adoption. Happy are they. At last the door will open to them; and it may be they shall be placed far above those who found the entrance quickly and with little toil.

R. Rothe, Predigten, p. 60.

We are led to form a favourable opinion of the man to whom these words were addressed. He seems to have been thoughtful and reverent, to have been attracted by the teaching and character of Christ, and to have detected the nothingness of all religion not based upon the love of God and man. He. was an earnest, true-hearted man, and his earnestness made him clearsighted. It was a comfort to him to be told that holiness of heart was the one great thing required by God.

I. It was his declaration in Mar 12:33 which drew from our Lord the remarkable judgment, “Thou art not far from the kingdom of God.” To enter the kingdom of God is to become a true Christian; first to understand, and then to obey habitually, the laws by which God endeavours to govern our hearts. A man is qualified to be a member of any earthly kingdom by acknowledging its government and yielding a willing obedience to its laws. And so with the kingdom of God. There is a certain state of mind which fits a man to be a loyal subject of that kingdom. To be Christlike, to acknowledge Christ’s person, to love Him, to try to find out what He wishes and do it numbly in dependence on Him-this is to have entered the kingdom of God, and to be an active citizen in support of its government. And the words of our text remind us that there are approaches leading up to this holy city. There is a state of mind in which we are nearly Christians, but not quite. We have not actually entered the kingdom of God, but we are not far from it.

II. Now it is plain that there are vast differences among those who are “not far from the kingdom of God,”-campers, as it were, on the frontiers of Christendom. There are some who deserve praise for having advanced so far; others-doubtless infinitely more-who deserve blame for having pushed no farther. The scribe to whom our Lord spoke belonged plainly to the first of these classes. He had done what so few of us, living in the full blaze of Christian light, are able to do-he had come to see that religion was essentially an inward spiritual thing, a thing of the heart; and that, however correct a man’s acts or beliefs might be, he was not a religious man unless with every power of his body, his intellect and his soul he loved God and his fellow-men. Those to whom the words of Christ can be addressed in a tone of approval are, in our day, those who have not had great advantages, but have made the most of these. God has all along been preparing their hearts though they knew it not. When at last His call speaks to them in some vehement tone-perhaps by a terrible sorrow, or an outburst of wickedness in some one for whom they care-we feel sure that they will embrace the call.

H. M. Butler, Harrow Sermons, 2nd series, p. 63.

The deepest interest must ever attach to those utterances of Christ in which He has pronounced upon the moral and spiritual state of those who came before Him. He knew what was in man: he knew, that is, the human heart in all its tendencies and capacities; and, besides, he could infallibly read individual hearts with clear decision and perfect equity.

Notice:-

I. That our Lord speaks of His kingdom as a definite reality. It is a distinct sphere or region with a frontier line marking it off from all else. Between the Law which the scribe professed and the Gospel which Christ was offering, there was a sharp, intelligible, boundary, which he must cross if he would pass from the one to the other.

II. But while this is made abundantly clear, while it is certain that Christ has created a sharply-defined barrier between the kingdom of God, and all that lies outside it, it is equally clear that he recognises, welcomes and rewards every approach towards that kingdom. He does not look upon all as equally distant from God until they have obeyed His call, and enrolled themselves as His disciples. Wherever conscience is awake, wherever a man is cherishing the light, is fearful lest by his unfaithfulness he should turn it into darkness, he is assuredly near, and is coming nearer, steadily nearer, to the kingdom of God. There is nothing more touching or more admirable in the ministry of Jesus Christ than His untiring outlook for what is hopeful in human nature.

III. Nevertheless, there was a higher state for this man to reach; he was on the verge of the kingdom; he was still outside it, and why? Because, though he understood the necessity of love, he had not yet learned to love; because, though he knew how he ought to walk and to please God, he did not know himself; he had as yet no sense of his own weakness, no real perception of the evil which taints all men’s service, no consciousness of that hopeless insufficiency which can be met only from without and by a Divine Deliverer. And more than this, he had no idea as yet of his own relation to Christ. He knows not what He is, and what He is capable of becoming to him. The critical, redeeming step to which Christ invites us all is impossible until a man awakes to see the gulf which lies between what he is and what he ought to be, and to feel and know that never can he bridge that gulf by any mere effort of his own. When a man comes to realize what sin is; when he sees that if he is to be saved from himself, his weakness must be reinforced by a supernatural strength, and casts himself upon the Deliverer who is mighty to save, then the passage takes place from the natural and earthly to the Divine and heavenly, the boundary line is crossed; he who was nigh is no longer outside, he is within the kingdom, a fellow-citizen with the saints of the kingdom of God.

R. Duckworth, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xviii., p. 193.

Obedience to God the Way to Faith in Christ.

In the words of the text we are taught, first, that the Christian’s faith and obedience are not the same religion as that of natural conscience, as being some way beyond it; secondly, that this way is “not far,” not far in the case of those who try to act up to their conscience; in other words, that obedience to conscience leads to obedience to the Gospel, which, instead of being something different altogether, is but the completion and perfection of that religion which natural conscience teaches.

I. We are plainly taught in Scripture that perfect obedience is the standard of Gospel holiness. A multitude of texts show that the Gospel leaves us just where it found us, as regards the necessity of our obedience to God; that Christ has not obeyed instead of us, but that obedience is quite as imperative as if Christ had never come; nay, is pressed upon us with additional sanctions; the difference being, not that He relaxes the strict rule of keeping His commandments, but that He gives us spiritual aids, which we have not except through Him, to enable us to keep them. And if we look to the history of the first propagation of the Gospel, we find this view confirmed. As far as we can trace the history, we find the early Christian Church was principally composed of those who had long been in the habit of obeying their consciences carefully, and so preparing themselves for Christ’s religion, that kingdom of God from which the text says they were not far.

II. Now let us see the consequences which follow from this great Scripture truth. We see the hopelessness of waiting for any sudden change of heart, if we are at present living in sin. “Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.” This is the exhortation. God acknowledges no man as a believer in His Son who does not anxiously struggle to obey His commandments to the utmost; to none of those who seek without striving, and who consider themselves safe, to none of these does He give “power to become the sons of God.” To obey God is to be near Christ, and to disobey is to be far from Him.

J. H. Newman, Parochial and Plain Sermons, vol. viii., p. 201.

I. Look at some of those things which bring a man near the kingdom of God. (1) It may be said that those are not far from it whose life brings them into connexion with some of its members and privileges. (2) A man is not far from the kingdom of God when he shows a spirit of reverence and candour towards Christ. (3) Another feature which brings a man closer to the Gospel is kindliness and amiability of nature. (4) The last hopeful feature we mention is an interest in the spiritual side of things.

II. Consider what is needed to make a man decidedly belong to the kingdom of God: (1) The first requisite is the new birth. (2) The other is the new life.

J. Ker, Sermons, p. 121.

You may be very near the kingdom, and yet never enter it, and of all cases of spiritual ruin there are none so melancholy, none so sad, as of those who were almost saved, and yet were lost. No doubt there is a sense in which, until we are born again, we are all equally far from the kingdom. The difference between the dead and the living, between the darkness of midnight and the radiance of noon, is one not of degree, but of kind. There is some truth here, but it is truth that requires to be wisely and guardedly stated. There is a hard and extravagant way of stating it that is repugnant to thoughtful and cultured minds, and sometimes brings the Gospel into ridicule. There cannot be a question that, of persons yet unsaved, some are nearer to salvation than others. There are circumstances in life, there are elements of character, there are conditions of mind, which make this man’s case more hopeful than that, and his conversion a thing less to be wondered at. Note four features in this young scribe’s case, which probably brought to our Lord’s lips the words of my text.

I. He was “not far from the kingdom,” because he had begun to think seriously on religion. You observe that in his manner and language there is not a trace of frivolity or captious-ness. The spirit of earnest, reverential inquiry is one to be commended and encouraged, and rarely leads a man into the entanglement of error. Because this lawyer was devoutly feeling his way, and seeking further light, our Lord looked him kindly in the face, and said “Thou art not far from the kingdom of God.”

II. He was not far from the kingdom, because he had already begun to attach greater importance to the spirit than to the letter. “To love the Lord with all one’s heart, and to love one’s neighbour as oneself, was more,” he said, “than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.” As a German theologian profoundly observes on this passage, “He who recognises the worth of love is near the kingdom of God; he who has himself felt it is in that kingdom.”

III. This young man was pronounced “not far from the kingdom of God,” because he was sincerely desirous of acting up to the measure of light which he possessed.

IV. He was declared to be “not far from the kingdom of God,” because he was amiable and virtuous. He was strictly moral, circumspect and pure. He was a gentleman, a man of sound principle, and good breeding. His high-toned principle and character were in his favour, and made his salvation more probable than had they been otherwise.

J. Thain Davidson, The City Youth, p. 267.

References: Mar 12:34.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxvi., No. 1517; Ibid., My Sermon Notes: Gospels and Acts, p. 77; F. W. Farrar, In the Days of thy Youth, p. 265; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. ix., p. 170; Homiletic Magazine, vol. xi., p. 139; H. W. Beecher, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxiv., p. 120; Plain Sermons by Contributors to “Tracts for the Times,” vol. v., p. 297. Mar 12:35-44.-H. M. Luckock, Footprints of the Son of Man, p. 274. Mar 12:37.-S. A. Brooke, Christ in Modern Life, p. 31; Christian World Pulpit, vol. xii., p. 19; A. Mursell, Ibid., vol. xxiii., p. 388; Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. i., p. 36. Mar 12:38-40.-W. Hanna, Our Lord’s Life on Earth, p. 401.

Mar 12:41-44

The Widow’s Gift.

I. Look first at the giver; a widow and a poor widow. Sorrow often makes people selfish, but the benevolent donor in the case before us was a widow.

II. Look next at the gift. Two mites. Wealth called the offering small, commerce accounted it small, religious custom reckoned it small; but, in relation to the means of the donor and the heart of the donor, and in the judgment of God, the gift was exceedingly great.

III. The interest attaching to it is greatly increased by the place or scene of the gift. It was bestowed in the temple of God, it was deposited in one of thirteen boxes in the women’s court. It is meet and right that we give where we receive. And what a place of blessing is a true house of the Lord; it is Bethel and holy ground; it is beautiful Zion and Bethesda, a house of light and love, of healing and salvation and redemption.

IV. And what, fourthly, was the object of this gift? These two mites were given as a freewill offering to the support of the temple, its institutions and its services, and the offering them, with this intent, constituted this poor widow a contributor to all that the temple yielded, to all it offered to heaven, and to all it gave to the children of men.

V. Note the spirit of the offering. The spirit of the offering was the spirit of true piety and of real godliness. It may be that in her worship she had been saying, “I will love Thee, O Lord, my strength,” and that love, increased by worship, carried these two mites from her scrip to her hand, and from her hand to the treasury of the Lord.

VI. Notice the Divine recognition of the gift. Jesus Christ saw the gift, estimated it, approved it, and commended the giver.

VII. There is something to be learned from the fact that Jesus Christ calls attention to this gift. Such lessons as these: (1) That the greatness of a gift depends upon the possessions of the individual. After the gift has been made: (2) that grief need not hinder giving; (3) that we may learn well-doing from each other; (4) to act as under our great Master’s eye.

S. Martin, Rain upon the Mown Grass, p. 380.

References: Mar 12:41.-Christian World Pulpit, vol. iv., p. 277. Mar 12:41-44.-H. W. Beecher, Ibid., vol. i., p. 83; vol. xxviii., p. 140; W. Hanna, Our Lord’s Life on Earth, p. 401; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. iv., p. 152; Homiletic Magazine, vol. viii., p. 314. Mar 12:42.-Ibid., vol. vii., p. 150.

Mar 12:43-44

The Widow’s Offering and the Stones of the Temple.

The spirit that led the disciples to admire the stones of the temple, while Christ pointed them to the widow’s offering, is a spirit natural to us all; and by considering it in the passage before us we shall reach certain facts which will guide and help us in our daily Christian life. The truths suggested by this contrast are twofold.

I. The true measure of sacrifice. Not the greatness of the outward act, but the perfectness of the inward motive. We judge men’s acts by their outward forms, rather than by the spirit which impelled them-we are so apt to regard only the great temple stones. In the light of the judgment day many of the world’s notions will be altered. There are unknown heroes and silent martyrs now, whom the world passes by. It is not the great outward act, but the perfect yielding of the soul, which constitutes the sacrifice which God will not despise.

II. The true idea of a temple. The disciples saw God’s dwelling-place in the house of stone, with its Holy of Holies and altars of sacrifice; Christ saw it in the broken heart of the widow. This idea characterised all His teachings. It is the inner motive and heart, as He constantly proclaimed, that God regards, and in the spirit that He must be served.

III. From the foregoing arise three practical lessons. (1) A lesson of duty. Every man may be spiritually heroic. Believe that the work you are appointed to do is God’s work, and you will always find scope for the heavenly spirit, and for living out the principle which Christ indicated when He pointed to the widow’s mite. (2) A lesson of encouragement. Love God in all things-consider no sacrifice too great or too small-do your best in everything as in His sight, and you will find Him everywhere. (3) A lesson of warning. The Jews had come to see God only in the temple at Jerusalem. As a consequence they became formalists-the surrender of their souls was forgotten. And the splendid temple fell. So now and ever. Forget the divinity of all life, and the temple of your soul will become desolate.

E. L. Hull, Sermons, 3rd series, p. 213.

References: Mar 13:1.-Preacher’s Monthly, vol. v., p. 177. Mar 13:1-13.-H. M. Luckock, Footprints of the Son of Man, p. 279. Mar 13:8.-Ibid., vol. iv., p. 160. Mar 13:24-36.-C. Stanford, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xx., p. 277; H. M. Luckock, Footprints of the Son of Man, p. 290.

Fuente: The Sermon Bible

Chapter 12

1. The Parable of the Vineyard. (Mar 12:1-12. Mat 21:33-46; Luk 20:9-19)

2. The Question concerning the Tribute Money. (Mar 12:13-17. Mat 22:15-22; Luk 20:20-26)

3. The Sadducees Questioning concerning Resurrection. (Mar 12:18-27. Mat 22:23-33; Luk 20:27-38)

4. The Question of the Scribe. (Mar 12:28-34. Mat 22:34-40)

5. His Question. (Mar 12:35-37. Mat 22:41-46; Luk 20:41-44)

6. Beware of the Scribes. (Mar 12:38-40. Mat 23:1-39; Luk 20:45-47)

7. The Servants loving sympathy and praise. (Mar 12:41-44. Luk 21:1-4.)

1. The Parable of the Vineyard. (Mar 12:1-12

The parable is a review of the history of Israel and its culmination in the rejection of the Son. With what calmness the perfect One relates it all. He is ready to have all done unto Him of which He speaks. A comparison with the Gospel of Matthew will show that Mark is brief and passes on rapidly, omitting utterances of the Lord which are not needed in his description of the Servant.

2. The Question concerning the Tribute Money. Mar 12:13-17

With this paragraph we have the different classes of Jews approaching the Lord to tempt Him. Pharisees and Herodians, Sadducees and a Scribe. The Lord manifests His wisdom and they are defeated. Then He turns questioner and warns against the scribes. His authority they could no longer question and now they tried to catch Him in His words. Pharisees and Herodians, so opposed to each other, could make a common cause in hating Gods Servant. If He had answered yes the Pharisees would have condemned Him for favoring the Gentile yoke. If He had said no, the Herodians would have accused Him as an enemy of Caesar. How wonderful His answer! They even had to marvel and yet it only intensified their hate. Caesars image told out the story of their sin.

3. The Sadducees Questioning concerning Resurrection. Mar 12:18-27

The Sadducees were rationalists and denied the existence of angels and the resurrection. They only believed in the giving of the law and accepted the Pentateuch. It was a fine spun argument. The Lord silences them from the portion of the Scriptures they endorsed.

4. The Question of the Scribe. Mar 12:28-34

A scribe now makes the last attempt. But he was indeed not far from the Kingdom of God. The one step was the acceptance of Christ, whose wisdom he had owned.

5. His Question. Mar 12:35-37

Then the Lord turned questioner. His wisdom had closed their mouths. In Matthews Gospel this significant question is more fully given. He refers to Psa 110:1-7. In connection with Matthew four great facts are stated by the Lord. 1) This Psalm was written by David. 2) It was written by inspiration. 3) It is a Messianic Psa 4:1-8) Christ is Davids Lord and Davids Son. While it silenced the scribes it also silences the present day Sadducees, the higher critics with their inventions. They claim that Psa 110:1-7 was not written by David and Christ is not foretold in it.

6. Beware of the Scribes. Mar 12:38-40

In Matthew the Holy Spirit reports the full discourse against the scribes and Pharisees (chapter 23) ending with the solemn statement, Behold your house is left unto you desolate. In Mark, where the divine design is to give us the picture of the Servant, only a few sentences are given. Yet they contain the chief characteristics of the corrupt leaders of the nation. Love of being seen, love of applause, love of preeminence, assumed religiousness and the devouring of the poor are all mentioned. These hireling servants shall have greater damnation.

7. The Servants loving sympathy and praise. Mar 12:41-44

He had rendered such perfect service free from seeking applause or preeminence and now He shows His loving sympathy to one of the poor widows who were being spoiled by the greed of the Pharisees. That poor, yet rich, widow had two mites. It was her all and she gave it. She might have given one mite and retained the other. She cast in all she had. And He saw it and His sympathy was towards her for she reminded Him of His own service in giving all. How it must have refreshed His heart. May we remember that nothing escapes His eye.

Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)

CHAPTER 51

This was The Lords Doing, and It Is

Marvelous in our Eyes.

And he began to speak unto them by parables. A certain man planted a vineyard, and set an 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. And at the season he sent to the husbandmen a servant, that he might receive from the husbandmen of the fruit of the vineyard. And they caught him, 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. And again he sent another; and him they killed, and many others; beating some, and killing some. Having yet therefore one son, his wellbeloved, 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? he will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others. And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner: This was the Lords doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? 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.

(Mar 12:1-12)

This is clearly an historical parable. We are told in verse twelve that the chief priests, scribes and elders of the Jews knew that the Lord Jesus had spoken the parable against them.

The history of the Jewish nation, from the time that the Lord brought them out of Egypt until the time of their destruction in 70 AD, is set before us in these twelve verses. Under the emblem of a vineyard and husbandmen (vinedressers), our Master tells us the story of Gods dealings with that nation, both in great mercy and in great judgment.

This parable is recorded here in the Book of God to stand as a beacon to warn us lest we, who have received and experienced far greater mercies than the Jews ever did, should also at last be dashed in pieces upon the rocks of Gods righteous retribution and judgment.

A National Warning

The things I am about to write may appear to many to be out of place in a commentary; but it is my purpose ever to apply the Scriptures as personally as possible to those who hear my voice or read what I write. Therefore, I make no apology for writing as I do. Rather, I urge you to read the following with great care.

Without question, there is a warning for us as a nation in this parable. The United States of America is a nation which has been blessed of God, perhaps unlike any other, with great providential mercies. We have enjoyed prosperity as no other nation in the world. We have lived in the lap of luxury, freedom and safety. There has never been a nation more blessed than ours has been historically with the gospel. God has sent prophet after prophet, generation after generation, through the length and breadth of this land. Israel had peculiar privileges indeed; but their providential blessings were nothing compared to ours.

But, like Israel of old, throughout our history we have provoked the Lord to jealousy. It seems to me, both as I read history and from the experience of my own brief lifetime, that the more greatly and signally the Lord has showered his mercies upon us, the more blatantly we have turned from him.

Truly, we must acknowledge as did the psalmist, He hath not dealt with us after our sins; nor rewarded us according to our iniquities. Like the Jews of old, we have mocked the messengers of God, despised his words and misused his prophets (2Ch 36:16).

I am astonished that God has not destroyed our nation. Our streets run red with blood, blood shed by unrestrained, undisciplined children. This generation of children and young people has educated barbarians for parents. Parents these days are more like brute beasts and crawling reptiles that lay their eggs, bury them in the sands of the world and forget them. Parents who refuse to train and discipline their children, who refuse to mold their characters for good, are nothing more than breeding beasts. My apologies to the beasts!

Indeed, it is customary these days for men and women, boys and girls simply to breed like dogs, first with one and then another. Common adultery has brought about an utter disregard for marriage, law and order. Fornication is smiled at as a light thing. It is as common for girls to have babies out of wedlock as it is for dogs to scratch fleas. Homosexuality is not only tolerated, it is accepted, promoted and taught in the classrooms of our schools!

As it has been throughout history when nations have abandoned God for their lusts, abandoned his way for pleasure, abandoned law and order in the name of freedom, human life has become so cheap in our society that abortion is more common than getting your teeth cleaned. Unborn infants are regarded as unwanted fat to be sucked away as desired. A man may easily get a longer prison sentence for killing your dog than for raping your wife or killing you.

It is astounding to me that God has not swept us away into oblivion. Yet, the fact that he has not yet destroyed us gives me hope. Maybe our great, gracious and glorious God will once more in wrath remember mercy! Maybe he yet has in store for our land such a great spiritual deliverance out of Babylon as he granted to the Jewish nation from their physical Babylonian captivity! Maybe!

A Greater Evil

Having said all that, as horrible as things are on the streets of our cities, in the classrooms of our schools, and among our political leaders, bad as the social fabric of our land is, there is a worse problem. Indeed, this worse problem is the root cause of the other problems we have to deal with everyday. The problem I speak of is this: The churches, preachers, teachers and spiritual leaders of our land, those who profess to be Gods servants, those who are responsible to teach us Gods Word and Gods ways, have long since abandoned the Word and truth of God. If you will read the first chapter of Romans, you will see that the moral decline of any people begins with spiritual decline, idolatry and apostasy from the Revelation of God in Holy Scripture.

This parable of the vineyard certainly speaks historically of the nation of Israel. It is, without question, a warning to us as a nation and a warning to other nations like ours in this apostate age, who are reaping the consequences of forsaking God and his Word. But it is primarily a warning to local churches, a warning to those who are now so greatly blessed in these dark, dark days with the privilege of sitting in the house of God, under the ministry of faithful gospel preaching. This is what God the Holy Spirit intends for us to learn from this parable: “Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee” (Rom 11:20-21). There are seven important lessons in this parable.

1.Gods church in this world is his vineyard. “And he began to speak unto them by parables. A certain man planted a vineyard, and set an 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” (Mar 12:1). There certainly are applications of this parable to be made to the church universal; but it speaks principally of the church local, local assemblies of men and women who profess to be followers of Christ and his gospel. Every true gospel church is a vineyard of Gods planting. The local church is Gods vineyard. It belongs to the Lord. He separated a piece of ground (a place) for it. He planted it. He has hedged it about. And the local church, the place where you gather with Gods elect, worship the Lord Jesus Christ, hear the gospel of his grace, and have Christ revealed to you through his Word, is the greatest blessing you have in this world.

2.The Lord God has let out this vineyard to us as his husbandmen (Mar 12:1). There is no greater privilege in this world and no greater responsibility under heaven than this: The Lord God has given us the treasure of the gospel, trusting to our hands the message of his grace, that we might be in this age the pillar and ground of the truth, holding forth the light of the gospel in a world of darkness (1Ti 3:15-16).

3.At the appointed season, the Lord God looks for and rightfully expects to find fruit from the husbandmen of his vineyard. “And at the season he sent to the husbandmen a servant, that he might receive from the husbandmen of the fruit of the vineyard”(Mar 12:2). The rent he requires of us is very reasonable. All he demands from us is that we reverence his Son (Mar 12:6). God simply requires that we worship his Son. That worship is more than attending worship services two or three times a week. The worship of Christ involves faith in him and faithfulness to him as stewards in his house (1Co 4:1-2; 2Co 4:1-7).

4.In Mar 12:2-8 our Savior teaches us that as men and women deal with and treat Gods faithful servants, so they deal with and treat Gods Son.

And at the season he sent to the husbandmen a servant, that he might receive from the husbandmen of the fruit of the vineyard. And they caught him, 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. And again he sent another; and him they killed, and many others; beating some, and killing some. Having yet therefore one son, his wellbeloved, 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.

5.Lost religious men and women love religion, religious duties, religious activity, religious ceremonies, religious history and religious tradition, but utterly despise God, his Son, and his gospel, and would (if they could) cast Gods Son off his throne, out of his Kingdom, and kill him. “But those husbandmen said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be oursAnd 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”(Mar 12:7; Mar 12:12). The reason preachers, teachers, churches and religious leaders despise and cast Christ and his Word out is obvious. They want the vineyard for themselves. The Pharisees did what they did during our Lords earthly ministry, and at last crucified the Son of God for only one reason. They wanted to preserve their position of power and influence over the people (Joh 11:47-54). That is the reason, the only reason, preachers and religious leaders like Diotrephes despise Christ, his gospel and his servants in every age (3Jn 1:9; Psa 2:1-12).

6.If we despise the privileges and opportunities God has given us, he will both take away those great privileges and make those things which might have been the means of our everlasting salvation and make them the very basis of our everlasting ruin. “What shall therefore the lord of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others. And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner”(Mar 12:9-10. Present privileges are no guarantee of future privileges. The Lord Jesus warns us that he will remove the candlestick that is despised (Rev 2:5). If the preaching of the gospel is not a savor of life unto you, it will be to you a savor of death (2Co 2:14-16).

7.Gods purpose is not hindered. “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 marvellous in our eyes? (Mar 12:10-11).Though many do despise Gods grace and thus heap destruction upon themselves, when he takes the gospel from one people, he gives it to another and the purpose of God is not thwarted or even hindered. Christ is still exalted and his people shall be saved (Rom 3:3; Rom 11:26; Rom 11:33-36).

Give ear, O Shepherd of Israel, thou that leadest Joseph like a flock; thou that dwellest between the cherubims, shine forth. Before Ephraim and Benjamin and Manasseh stir up thy strength, and come and save us. Turn us again, O God, and cause thy face to shine; and we shall be saved. O LORD God of hosts, how long wilt thou be angry against the prayer of thy people? Thou feedest them with the bread of tears; and givest them tears to drink in great measure. Thou makest us a strife unto our neighbours: and our enemies laugh among themselves. Turn us again, O God of hosts, and cause thy face to shine; and we shall be saved. Thou hast brought a vine out of Egypt: thou hast cast out the heathen, and planted it. Thou preparedst room before it, and didst cause it to take deep root, and it filled the land. The hills were covered with the shadow of it, and the boughs thereof were like the goodly cedars. She sent out her boughs unto the sea, and her branches unto the river. Why hast thou then broken down her hedges, so that all they which pass by the way do pluck her? The boar out of the wood doth waste it, and the wild beast of the field doth devour it. Return, we beseech thee, O God of hosts: look down from heaven, and behold, and visit this vine; And the vineyard which thy right hand hath planted, and the branch that thou madest strong for thyself. It is burned with fire, it is cut down: they perish at the rebuke of thy countenance. Let thy hand be upon the man of thy right hand, upon the son of man whom thou madest strong for thyself. So will not we go back from thee: quicken us, and we will call upon thy name. Turn us again, O LORD God of hosts, cause thy face to shine; and we shall be saved. (Psa 80:1-19)

Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible

vineyard

Israel. Isa 5:1-7. Israel was not fruitless, but brought forth only wild grapes. Cf.; Joh 3:6; Hos 10:1 contra, Hos 14:8.

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

he began: Mar 4:2, Mar 4:11-13, Mar 4:33, Mar 4:34, Eze 20:49, Mat 13:10-15, Mat 13:34, Mat 13:35, Mat 21:28-33, Mat 22:1-14, Luk 8:10, Luk 22:9

A certain: Mat 21:33-40, Luk 20:9-15

planted: Psa 80:8-16, Isa 5:1-4, Jer 2:21, Luk 13:6-9, Joh 15:1-8, Rom 11:17-24

and set: Neh 9:13, Neh 9:14, Psa 78:68, Psa 78:69, Psa 147:19, Psa 147:20, Eze 20:11, Eze 20:12, Eze 20:18-20, Act 7:38, Act 7:46, Act 7:47, Rom 3:1, Rom 3:2, Rom 9:4, Rom 9:5

and let: Son 8:11, Son 8:12, Isa 7:23

and went: Mar 13:34, Mat 25:14, Luk 15:13, Luk 19:12

Reciprocal: 1Ki 20:39 – Thy servant Psa 80:15 – vineyard Eze 15:2 – What Mic 4:8 – O tower

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

AS WE CLOSED Mar 11:1-33 we heard the leaders of the Jews plead ignorance. Whether Johns baptism was from heaven or of men they could not tell, and much less could they understand the work and service of the Lord. We open this chapter to see it plainly demonstrated that He perfectly knew and understood them. He knew their motives, their thoughts and the end to which they were heading. He revealed His knowledge of them in a striking parable.

The first verse speaks of parables, and Matthews Gospel shows us that at this point He uttered three. Mark only records the middle one of the three-the one that foretold what these Jewish leaders were going to do, and what the results would be for them. In this parable the husbandmen represented the responsible leaders of Israel, and a summary is furnished of the way in which through the centuries they had refused all Gods demands.

In speaking of a vineyard the Lord Jesus was continuing a figure which had been used in the Old Testament-Psa 80:1-19; Isa 5:1-30; and elsewhere. In the Psalm the vine is clearly identified with Israel, and out of it is to come a Branch who is, the Son of Man whom Thou madest strong for Thyself. In Isaiah it is very manifest that God was not getting out of His vineyard what He was entitled to expect. Now we find the story carried a good deal forward. The owner of the vineyard had done his part in providing all that was needful and the responsibility as to the fruit lay with the husbandmen to whom the vineyard was entrusted. They failed in their responsibility, and then proceeded to deny the rights of the owner and maltreat his representatives. Last of all they were tested by the advent of the owners son. So the leaders of Israel had maltreated the prophets, and slain some of them. And now the Son had appeared, who is the Branch of whom the Psalm speaks. This was the supreme test.

The position of the Jew as under the law is portrayed in this parable. Consequently the question was whether they could produce that which God demanded. They had not done so. Not only was there an absence of fruit, but there was the presence of positive hatred for God and those who represented Him; and this hatred reached its climax when the Son appeared. The responsible leaders were moved by envy, and they wished to monopolize the inheritance for themselves, and so they were prepared to slay Him. A day or two before they had determined upon His death, as verse Mar 12:18 of the last chapter told us. Now the Lord discovers to them that He knew their evil thoughts.

And He showed them also what would be the terrible consequences for themselves. They would be dispossessed and destroyed. This was historically fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem, and will doubtless have a further and final fulfilment in the last days. The One whom they rejected will become the dominant Head of all that God is building for eternity. When that prediction is fulfilled it will indeed be a wonder in the eyes of Israel.

The statement that the lord of the vineyard will give the vineyard unto others, is an intimation of what comes more fully to light in Joh 15:1-27. Others will become branches in the true Vine, and will bring forth fruit: only they will no longer be under the law in doing so, nor will they be selected from amongst the Jews only. The Lords words were a warning that their rejection of Him would mean their setting aside by God, and the gathering in of others, till ultimately the One they rejected would dominate everything. They saw that the parable pronounced judgment against them.

Not daring for the moment to lay hands on Him, they commenced a verbal offensive against Him, endeavouring to catch Him in His words. First came the Pharisees jointly with the Herodians. Their question as to the tribute money was skilfully designed to make Him an offender one way or the other-either against the national feelings of the Jew or the Roman. His answer however reduced them to impotence. He made them admit their servitude to Caesar by an appeal to their coinage. Their lips, not His, pronounced it to be Caesars image. Then He not only gave the answer to their question which was perfectly obvious in the light of their own admission, but also used it as an introduction to the far more weighty matter of Gods claims upon them. No wonder they marvelled at Him.

We may notice how, in verse Mar 12:14, these opponents paid tribute to His perfect truth. In a way far beyond anything they realized-in the most absolute sense-He was the truth and taught the truth, wholly undeflected by man and his little world. Of no other servant of God could this be said. Even Paul was influenced by human considerations, as Act 21:20-26 shows. Jesus alone is the perfect Servant of God, and He was so poor that He had to ask for a penny to be brought to Him.

Next came the Sadducees, asking Him to unravel the matrimonial tangle which they propounded. He did this and convicted them of their folly; but before doing so He revealed its underlying causes. They did not know the Scriptures-that was ignorance. They did not know the power of God -that was unbelief. Their unbelieving error was upheld on these twin pillars. Modern unbelief of the Sadduceean type is supported by just the same two pillars. They continually misquote, misinterpret, or otherwise mangle Scripture, and they conceive of God as though He were anything but Almighty-as just a man, though of larger powers than ourselves.

The Lord proved the resurrection of the dead by quoting the Old Testament. The fact of it lies implicit in Exo 3:6. God was still the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob hundreds of years after their death. Though dead to men, they lived to Him, and that meant they must rise again. There the fact lay in the Scripture, and in denying it the Sadducee only convicted himself of ignorance.

Since the fact was there in Scripture the Lord, true to His Servant character, appealed to the Scripture and did not assert the fact dogmatically on His own authority. What He did state dogmatically is in verse Mar 12:25, where he makes dear the state or condition into which resurrection will introduce us, thus going beyond what the Old Testament taught. The resurrection world differs from this world. Earthly relationships cease in those heavenly conditions. We are not to be angels, but we are to be as the angels which are in heaven. Immortality and incorruptibility will be ours.

The plain fact was therefore that the Sadducees had conjured up a difficulty in their ignorance which had no existence in fact. Their discomfiture was complete.

One of the scribes who was listening perceived this, and he ventured to propound a question that they often debated amongst themselves, concerning the relative importance of the various commandments. The

Lords answer brushed aside all their elaborate arguments and quibbles as to one or other of the ten commandments by going straight to the word contained in Deu 6:4, Deu 6:5. Here was a commandment which brought within its scope all the other commandments. God demanded that He should be absolutely supreme in the affections of His creatures; if only He were so, all other things would fall into their right place. Here is the great master-commandment which governs everything.

In this commandment there lay an element of great encouragement. Why should God care about possessing the undivided love of His creature? Faith would answer this question by saying-Because He Himself is love. Being love, and loving His creature, even though lost in his sins, He cannot be satisfied without the love of His creature. Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of the law. Had they been able to do so, that is what they would have seen.

For the second commandment the Lord referred the man to Lev 19:18, another unexpected passage. But this commandment evidently springs out of the first. No one can have ability and inclination to treat his neighbour rightly except he first is right in his relations with his God. But love is the essence of this second commandment no less than of the first. To love ones neighbour as oneself is the limit under the law. Only under grace is it possible to go a step beyond this, as for instance Aquila and Priscilla did, as recorded in Rom 16:4. However, Love is the fulfilling of the law (Rom 13:10), and this is said in connection with this second commandment.

The scribe felt the force of this answer, as verses Mar 12:32-33 show. The series of questions began with the confession, Master, we know that Thou… teaches the way of God in truth. This was said by the Pharisees and Herodians in the spirit of hypocrisy. It ended with the scribe saying in all sincerity, Well, Master, Thou hast said the truth. The man saw that the love which would lead to the fulfilling of these two great commandments is of far more importance than offering all the sacrifices which the law enjoined. The sacrifices had their place but they were only a means to an end. Love is the end of the commandment, as 1Ti 1:5 tells us. The end is greater than the means. Thus the scribe approved of the answer that had been given to him.

The Lords rejoinder in verse Mar 12:34 is very striking. He pronounced the man as not far from the kingdom of God, and this showed two things. First, that anyone who gets away from what is outward and ceremonial, to realize the importance of what is inward and vital before God, is not far from blessing. Second, that important as such a realization is, it does not of itself suffice for entrance into the kingdom. Something further is needed, even the spirit of a little child, as we saw when considering Mar 10:1-52. The scribe was near the kingdom but not yet in it. This reply, we judge, staggered the man, as well as the other listeners, and because of this no one cared to ask further questions. Such a man as this, well versed in the law of God, they took to be in the kingdom as a matter of course. The Lords words challenged their thoughts. Yet, in seeing that God aims at, and values, that which is moral and spiritual beyond what is ceremonial and fleshly he had travelled a long way towards the kingdom. Rom 14:17 enforces the same thing as regards ourselves, at least in principle. Have we fully recognized it?

His opponents having finished with their questions the Lord propounds to them His great question, arising out of Psa 110:1-7. The scribes were quite clear that the Messiah was to be the Son of David; yet here is David speaking of Him as his Lord. Amongst men, and in those days, a father never addressed his son in such terms, but the reverse: the son called his father, lord. How could the Christ then be Son of David? Were the scribes wrong in what they asserted? Or could they explain it?

They could not explain it. They were silent. The explanation was exceedingly simple, but face to face with the Christ, and unwilling to admit His claims, they wilfully shut their eyes to it. He was the Son of David, and David called Him Lord by the Holy Ghost, so there was no mistake. The explanation is that it was the Son of God who became the Son of David according to the flesh, as is so plainly stated in Rom 1:3. When once the Deity of the Christ is fully acknowledged all is plain. These verses throw a good deal of light upon the statement in 1Co 12:3, that, No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

The Lord had now answered all the questions of His adversaries, and asked them a question which they could not answer. Had they been able to answer it, they would have been put into possession of the key to the whole situation. The mass of the people were still glad to listen to Him but the scribes were blind, and in verses Mar 12:38-40 the Lord warns the people against them. Those who were being blindly led are warned against their blind leaders. The real motives and objects of the scribes are unmasked. The Word of God from His lips pierces between soul and spirit in an unerring way.

Their characteristic sin was self-seeking in the things of God. Whether in the market-place-the business centre, the synagogue-the religious centre, or in feasts-the social circle, they must have the commanding place, and to this end they wore their distinctive dress. Having gained the leading position they used it to feather their own nests financially at the expense of widows, the most defenceless class in the community. The acquisition of power and money was the end and object of their religion. They followed the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness (2Pe 2:15); and there are all too many in our day who still tread that evil way, the end of which is greater damnation, or severer judgment. The adjective, you notice, is not longer as though differences might exist in the duration of punishment; though there will be differences as regards its severity.

The adversaries had provoked this discussion with their questions, but the last word was with the Lord. The closing words must have fallen from His lips with the force of a sledge-hammer. He calmly took to Himself the office of Judge of all the earth and pronounced their doom. Had He not been the Son of God this had been folly and worse.

But the same Son of God sat over against the treasury and beheld the gifts of the crowd, and lo! He can with equal certainty appraise the value of their gifts. A poor widow approaches-possibly one who had suffered from the swindling of rapacious scribes-and casts in her little all. Two of the smallest coins were left to her, and she threw them both in. According to human thoughts her gift was absurd and contemptible in its smallness, its presence would not be noticed, and its absence would not be felt. In the Divine estimation it was more valuable than all the other gifts put together. God s arithmetic in this matter is not ours.

With God the motive is everything. Here was a woman who instead of blaming God because of the misdemeanours of the scribes, who claimed to represent Him, devoted her all to the service of God. This delighted the heart of our Lord.

He called His disciples to Him, as verse Mar 12:43 tells us, and pointed the woman out, proclaiming the virtue of her act. This is particularly striking if we notice how Mar 13:1-37 opens, for His disciples were anxious to point out to Him the greatness and beauty of the Temple buildings. They pointed to costly stones wrought by mens busy hands. He pointed to the moral beauty of a poor widows act. He told them that their great buildings would all crash into ruin. It is the widows act that will be remembered in eternity.

And yet the widow gave her two mites to the temple chest that received contributions for the upkeep of the temple fabric! The Lord had already turned His back on the temple and now was pronouncing its doom. She did not know this; but in spite of being a little behind the times in her intelligence, her gift was accepted and valued according to the devoted heart that prompted it. What a comfort this fact is!

God was before her in her gift, and God abides even when temples are destroyed. Things material-upon which we may set our hearts-disappear, but God remains.

Fuente: F. B. Hole’s Old and New Testaments Commentary

Chapter 11.

The Wicked Husbandmen

“And He began to speak unto them by parables. A certain man planted a vineyard, and set an 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. And at the season he sent to the husbandmen a servant, that he might receive from the husbandmen of the fruit of the vineyard. And they caught him, 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. 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? he will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others. 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 marvellous in our eyes? 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.”-Mar 12:1-12.

The Two Sons.

This parable, the parable of the wicked husbandmen, as we call it, is, on the whole, perhaps the saddest and sternest that ever fell from the lips of Christ. Dr. A. B. Bruce classifies it as a parable of judgment. And such undoubtedly it is. And the judgment appears the more severe and stern because judgment is Christ’s strange work; and the doom pronounced appears the more awful, because it falls from the lips of Him “Who said of Himself that He had not come into the world to judge the world, but that the world through Him should be saved. Before I begin to discuss this poignant and heartbreaking parable, let me try to place it for you in its right context. After their humiliating experience in the discussion about authority, the priests and the elders would very gladly have withdrawn quietly away. But Jesus did not permit them to do that. He carried the war into the enemy’s camp. They had come to challenge Christ’s authority. He was not content to expose their spiritual incompetence. By means of the parable of the Two Sons, He roundly charged them with the sin of insincerity. They were like the elder son in that parable, who, when his father bade him go and work in the vineyard, replied, “I go, sir,” and went not. Theirs was all profession, without practice. They made a great parade of their reverence for God, and did not obey Him. And so it would come to pass, Jesus said, that the publicans and harlots would go into the Kingdom of God before them. For while by their wild and reckless life the publicans and harlots had seemed to refuse obedience to God, like the younger son, who, when his father bade him go and work, said, “I go not”; yet at the call of John these people had repented of their sin, and returned to God, like the younger son, who afterwards repented and went. This parable Jesus seems to have spoken directly to the priests and elders, and it bit deep; for they themselves must have known how true it was that while they worshipped God with their lips, their hearts were far from Him.

The Wicked Husbandmen.

But even after uttering the parable of the Two Sons, Christ had not done with these unhappy priests and scribes. Turning away from them, He addressed Himself to the crowd that was standing round, and spoke to them this parable of the Wicked Husbandmen. After having spoken to them, He proceeded to speak about them to the crowd. In the parable of the Two Sons He had charged the priests and elders directly with the sin of insincerity. In this parable He speaks to the multitude of the doom that is sure to fall upon these men who professed religion, and did not practise it; upon these religious leaders who were not religious themselves; upon these so-called religious guides who had rejected and persecuted and slain every servant God had sent to them. Their high place was to be forfeited; all their privileges were to be taken away. They were to fall under the holy wrath of God. “He will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others” (Mar 12:9). And the priests and elders recognised the point of the story. They needed no laboured explanations. It carried its terrible meaning on its face. It was of their faithlessness, and their wickedness, and their rejection and doom Christ had spoken. And if the parable of the Two Sons bit deep, this pierced them to the very heart. In their rage and hate, they would have murdered Christ on the spot, had they dared. “And they sought to lay hold on Him; and they feared the multitude; for they perceived that He spake the parable against them” (Mar 12:12).

The Judgment of Faithlessness.

Now let me turn to the parable itself. It is, primarily, as I have already said, a parable of judgment; and it is from that point of view I want in the first place to look at it. The broad drift of the meaning of the parable is sufficiently evident. It was still more evident to those who first listened to it. For in a sense this was not a new parable to the Jews; it was an old and familiar parable. Long before, Isaiah (Isa. v.) had pictured Israel as a vineyard, and had sung a song of what God had done for it-how He made a trench about it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also hewed out a winepress therein. But Israel disappointed God, for when He looked that it should bring forth grapes, behold, it brought forth wild grapes. That allegory of Isaiah was familiar enough to every Jewish mind; and what Jesus does here, is to take that old and familiar allegory, and adapt it to His own special purpose. As soon as the first sentence about the man planting a vineyard fell from His lips, His listeners knew it was of Israel, i.e. of themselves, Christ was speaking.

The Story and its Application.

Now in interpreting the parables we must not try to find a specific spiritual equivalent for every little detail in the picture. If we begin to puzzle over what the hedge means, and what the winepress means, and indeed, what exactly the vineyard means, we shall become hopelessly mystified and confused. The analogy between the earthly story and the spiritual truth it is meant to teach, is an analogy in broad outline, and does not extend to minute particulars. Let me in such broad outline set forth the truth this tragic story is meant to teach. The owner of the vineyard in this case is God. The husbandmen to whom He let it out are the Jews, and especially the Jewish leaders-the elders and chief priests and scribes about whom we read in the preceding paragraph. The vineyard itself is not quite so easy satisfactorily to interpret. Some say that it stands for the Church; others that it stands for the Kingdom of God. Let us be content to think that the “vineyard” stands for those unique religious privileges and opportunities God bestowed upon Israel. God did for Israel what He did not for any other nation. He made them the recipients of a unique revelation. He made them the depositaries of the true faith. And He did everything that could be done to secure that Israel should keep the deposit, and preserve and diffuse the revelation. But Israel was false to its trust. Again and again the people turned apostate. Instead of keeping and spreading the true faith, Israel again and again forsook the Lord, and turned after strange gods. Israel was indeed a vineyard from which God did not receive the expected fruit.

The Servants and the Husbandmen.

The Mission of the Son.

Again and again He sent His servants to this perverse and rebellious people. Prophet after prophet summoned them back to the service of God. But there was scarcely a prophet whom they did not repudiate and persecute. The description in this parable is literally true. Some they beat, and some they wounded in the head, and handled shamefully, and so with many others, beating some, and killing some. Elijah, Micaiah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, John the Baptist-they had all suffered. They pleaded and reasoned with Israel in vain. Rejection had been their invariable lot. And the climax of Israel’s rebellion and persistent faithlessness came in their treatment of Jesus. When His servants all failed, God sent His only Son. “They will reverence my Son,” He said. But when these wicked husbandmen saw the Son they said, “This is the heir; come, let us kill Him” (Mar 12:7). That is to say, Jesus prophesies that as they had treated the prophets, so they would treat the Son. And it all came true. Before the week was out the Jews, incited by their leaders, had nailed the Son Himself to the bitter tree!

Neglected Opportunities and Divine Sentence.

That was the history of Israel-a history of opportunities neglected, privileges abused, a great trust betrayed. God got no fruit from this vineyard He had so carefully planted and so jealously guarded. All the labours of prophets and Psalmists had been in vain. Far from spreading the faith, Israel had not even kept it. Far from extending the Kingdom, Israel itself had been rebellious. “What therefore will the lord of the vineyard do?” asked Jesus (Mar 12:9). And the people gave back the answer, “Miserable men! He will come and destroy these husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others” (Luk 20:15-16). And although, according to Luke’s account, the priests and rulers broke in with a passionate “God forbid!” Jesus accepts the people’s verdict. That is exactly the fate that shall overtake faithless Israel. The vineyard shall be taken away from them. They shall lose their high place. They shall cease to be God’s chosen instruments. He will entrust the cause of the Kingdom to other hands.

The Sentence Executed.

It all came true. Faithless Israel was destroyed. Forty years after this parable was spoken the nation was shattered, crushed, and broken. Israel religiously ceased to count. God put the care of His Kingdom into other hands. Like His Apostles, He turned to the Gentiles. He let out the vineyard to others, who were aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise. And from them has God’s fruit been found.

Privileges and Responsibility.

That is the story, a story of tragic import to the Jews who heard it, and full of the most solemn warning to us as well. I can scarcely do more than point out some of its most obvious lessons. Notice, first of all, how the parable insists upon it that privilege carries with it responsibility. If God lets out a vineyard, He expects fruit. That is to say, gifts and privileges are all for service and use. God expects a return for them. As Dr Glover says, “We have a rent to pay for every privilege.” It does not matter what the privilege may be. One man’s gift may be wealth, and another’s may be learning, and another’s may be leisure. It matters not; God expects wealth, learning and leisure to be used for His glory, for the good of men. And especially is this the case in respect of religious privileges. They are given for use. God expects rent for them. And the rent he expects is their employment for the benefit of others. “Necessity is laid upon me, and woe is me if I preach not the Gospel,” that is the rent. We have been signally favoured in regard to religious privileges. Is God getting the rent He expects? Are we diffusing the light? Are we spreading the kingdom? Is God’s cause profiting by us? Does the Lord get His fruit?

The Progression of Sin.

Then notice, secondly, what an illustration we get here of the progression of sin. These husbandmen begin by beating a servant, they end by killing the Son. They began by being merely perverse and wilful, they ended by being wicked and devilish. That is one of the terrible characteristics of sin. Evil grows. “Is thy servant a dog” (2Ki 8:13), said Hazael, when the prophet foretold some awful enormity that would be perpetrated by him. He was indignant at the bare suggestion. And yet he did all the atrocious things predicted. Sin dulls the sensibilities, and sears the conscience, and so gradually the sinner becomes capable of crimes from which in his more innocent days he would have shrunk in horror. Thus it came about that Jerusalem, which began by rejecting the messages of the prophets, ended by crucifying Christ between two thieves.

The End of Faithlessness-Deprivation.

But, of course, the central lesson of all is this, that faithlessness is punished by deprivation. It is so all through life. Any possession, any power, any gift that is not put to use, is taken away. Atrophy is one of Nature’s tragic truths. The condition of the retention of any faculty is its employment. And it is so specially with religious place and privilege. If we lose our first love, and cease to do our first works, the result will be that our candlestick will be removed out of its place. Many candlesticks have been removed. Many transferences of privilege have taken place. The Jew was rejected, and the Gentile put in his place. Early in the story of Christianity, the Eastern Church lost its pride of place, and the Western Church led in its stead. In the sixteenth century the Roman Church failed to shake itself free of its superstitious falsities, and so the leadership fell to the Churches of the Reformation. God has raised us, as a people, high amongst the nations. He has conferred upon us signal honour and privilege. But let us remember that a Britain that ceases to be faithful may be thrust from her high place, and her glory may be given to another. We hold our place only on condition that we bring forth fruit. A faithless Britain may be a cast-away Britain. God may give the vineyard to others. We may become as Nineveh and Tyre. There is need to pray, “Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet, lest we forget, lest we forget!”

The Divine Patience.

But this parable is not simply a parable of judgment upon human faithlessness. It is also a parable of the Divine patience, and of the unique and unshared glory of Christ. It is a parable of the Divine patience. Dr A. B. Bruce says that no landlord would ever have acted as this landlord did. The whole story has an air of improbability, not to say impossibility. An ordinary landlord would very speedily have evicted these troublesome and rebellious tenants. Quite so. Jesus had to tell an improbable, almost an impossible, story if He was to convey any notion of the patience and long-suffering of God. For God’s patience does pass all the limits possible to us men. As Faber puts it, “His fondness goes far out beyond our dreams.” Indeed, in its primary application, this parable is not a parable at all, it is simple, matter-of-fact history. This is how God treated Israel. He sent to them servant after servant, prophet after prophet. And though Israel turned a deaf ear to the appeals of God’s prophets, from Amos to John the Baptist, even then God’s patience was not exhausted. He had yet one, a beloved Son; He sent Him last unto them, saying, “They will reverence My Son!” What marvellous and subduing patience this is!

-A Patience that Still Lasts.

And all this is true of the patience of God still. That is the chief characteristic of the love of God-it lasts! It outlasts. “How often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him?” asked Peter one day; “until seven times?” And I have no doubt that in suggesting seven times he thought he was making a most generous offer. “I say not unto thee, Until seven times,” said Jesus, “but, Until seventy times seven” (Mat 18:21-22). Seventy times seven, that is the way in which the Divine love forgives. That is the way in which the Divine love pleads and entreats. It does not depart at the first rebuff. It returns until seventy times seven. “Behold, I stand at the door and knock,” says the Lord. Or, as the Greek verb might be translated, “I have been standing a long time, and am standing still” (Rev 3:20). It is not once He knocks. He continues to stand, and continues to knock, until seventy times seven. If there had been no second chance, if the Lord had left us at the first rebuff, it would have gone hard with some of us. But the long-suffering of the Lord, as Peter says, is salvation. We may have rejected His offers again and again and again, but our rejection will not be cast up against us.

The Wicked Husbandmen

“If I ask Him to receive me,

Will He say me nay?

Not till earth, and not till heaven,

Pass away.”

The Unshared Glory of Christ;

-The Glory of the Son.

Again, this is a parable not only of the judgment of faithlessness and the Divine patience, but also a parable of the unshared glory of Christ. Here He tells the people what was the ground of His authority to cleanse the Temple, to forgive sins, to abrogate the law of Moses. It comes out in Mar 12:6. “He had yet one, a beloved Son; He sent Him last unto them, saying, They will reverence My Son.” Now in that verse Christ is speaking of Himself. He is the Son whom the Lord of the vineyard sent as His last hope. “The verse is of immense significance,” Dr Bruce says, “for the self-consciousness of Jesus.” And its significance consists in this. Jesus is here drawing a distinction between Himself and the prophets, between Himself and Isaiah and Jeremiah and Elijah and Moses. What were they? Servants. What was He? A Son. He places Himself in a category quite apart from the greatest and noblest of men. Even Moses was but a slave in God’s house. Jesus was a Son over it. That was Christ’s answer to the question, “By what authority doest Thou these things? or who gave Thee this authority to do these things?” His right to do these things was that He was God’s only and beloved Son. His authority roots itself in His personality.

His Claim to Obedience.

That is where Christ’s authority roots itself still. Christ is the Master-light of all our seeing. He is the Lord of our consciences. His veriest word is law. That is too vast and august an authority to entrust to the best and noblest of men. The only justification for it is that Christ is more than man, that He is God’s beloved Son, that He is God Himself incarnate in the flesh, and by word and deed declaring His holy will concerning us. That is just what He was. A greater than the greatest of the prophets-God’s beloved Son. To God’s Son we cannot render homage too complete, or obedience too explicit. He has a right to His unquestioned authority. It was God Himself Who, speaking of Jesus, said to the three disciples on the holy mount, and through them to all men and women for all time, “This is My beloved Son; hear Him.” Do we hear Him? And obey Him? Do we recognise and bow to His authority? “Blessed are all they that put their trust in Him.”

Fuente: The Gospel According to St. Mark: A Devotional Commentary

1

See the comments at Mat 13:3 as to the right use of Parables. For other comments as to the householder see Mat 21:33.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

And he began to speak unto them by parables. A certain man planted a vineyard, and set an 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.

[A certain man planted a vineyard.] The priests and Pharisees knew, saith Matthew, that “these things were spoken of them,” Mat 21:45. Nor is it any wonder; for the Jews boasted that they were the Lord’s vineyard: and they readily observed a wrong done to that vineyard by any: but how far were they from taking notice, how unfruitful they were, and unthankful to the Lord of the vineyard!

“The matter may be compared to a king that had a vineyard; and there were three who were enemies to it. What were they? One cut down the branches. The second cut off the bunches. And the third rooted up the vines. That king is the King of kings, the Blessed Lord. The vineyard of the Lord is the house of Israel. The three enemies are Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, and Haman,” etc.

[A vineyard.] “If a man plants one row of five vines, the school of Shammai saith, That it is a vineyard. But the school of Hillel saith, It is not a vineyard, until there be two rows of vines there.”

[Set a hedge about it.] “What is a hedge? Let it be ten handbreadths high”: less than so is not a hedge.

[Digged a place for the winefat.] Let the fat be ten handbreadths deep, and four broad.

[Built a tower.] Let the watchhouse, which is in the vineyard, be ten high, and four broad. Cubits are to be understood. For Rambam saith, watchhouse is a high place where the vine-dresser stands to overlook the vineyard.

[Let it out to husbandmen.] “He that lets out his vineyard to a keeper, either as a husbandman, or as one to keep it gratis; and he enters into covenant with him, to dig it, prune it, dress it, at his own cost; but he neglects it, and doth not so; he is guilty, as if he should with his own hand lay the vineyard waste.”

Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels

THE verses before us contain an historical parable. The history of the Jewish nation, from the day that Israel left Egypt down to the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, is here set before us as in a glass. Under the figure of the vineyard and the husbandmen, the Lord Jesus tells the story of God’s dealings with His people for fifteen hundred years. Let us study it attentively, and apply it to ourselves.

Let us observe, in the first place, God’s special kindness to the Jewish Church and nation. He gave to them peculiar privileges. He dealt with them as a man deals with a piece of land which he separates and hedges in for “a vineyard.” He gave them good laws and ordinances. He planted them in a goodly land, and cast out seven nations before them. He passed by greater and mightier nations to show them favor. He let alone Egypt, and Assyria, and Greece, and Rome, and showered down mercies on a few millions of people in Palestine. The vineyard of the Lord was the house of Israel. No family under heaven ever received so many signal and distinguishing privileges as the family of Abraham.

And we too, who live in Great Britain, can we say that we have received no special mercies from God? We cannot say so. Why are we not a heathen country, like China? Why are we not a land of idolaters, like Hindostan? We owe it all to the distinguishing favor of God. It is not for our goodness and worthiness, but of God’s free grace, that England is what England is among the nations of the earth. Let us be thankful for our mercies, and know the hand from which they come. Let us not be high-minded, but humble, lest we provoke God to take our mercies away. If Israel had peculiar national privileges, so also has England. Let Englishmen mark this well, and take heed lest that which happened to Israel should happen also to them.

Let us observe, in the second place, God’s patience and longsuffering towards the Jewish nation. What is their whole history as recorded in the Old Testament, but a long record of repeated provocations, and repeated pardons? Over and over again we read of prophets being sent to them, and warnings being delivered, but too often entirely in vain. One servant after another came to the vineyard of Israel, and asked for fruit. One servant after another was “sent away empty” by the Jewish husbandmen, and no fruit borne by the nation to the glory of God. “They mocked the messengers of God, and despised His words, and misused His prophets.” (2Ch 36:16.) Yet hundreds of years passed away before “the wrath of the Lord arose against His people, till there was no remedy.” Never was there a people so patiently dealt with as Israel.

And we too, who dwell in Great Britain, have we no longsuffering of God to be thankful for? Beyond doubt, we have abundant cause to say that our Lord is patient. He does not deal with us according to our sins, or reward us according to our iniquities. We have often provoked Him to take our candlestick away, and to deal with us as He has dealt with Tyre, and Babylon, and Rome. Yet His longsuffering and lovingkindness continue still. Let us beware that we do not presume on His goodness too far. Let us hear in His mercies a loud call to us to bear fruit, and let us strive to abound in that righteousness which alone exalteth a nation. (Pro 14:34.) Let every family in the land feel its responsibility to God, and then the whole nation will be seen showing forth His praise.

Let us observe, in the third place, the hardness and wickedness of human nature, as exemplified in the history of the Jewish people.

It is difficult to imagine a more striking proof of this truth, than the summary of Israel’s dealings with God’s messengers, which our Lord sketches in this parable. Prophet after prophet was sent to them in vain. Miracle after miracle was wrought among them, without any lasting effect. The Son of God Himself, the well beloved, at last came down to them, and was not believed. God Himself was manifest in the flesh, dwelling among them, and “they took Him and killed Him.”

There is no truth so little realized and believed as the “desperate wickedness” of the human heart. Let the parable before us this day be always reckoned among the standing proofs of it. Let us see in it what men and women can do, in the full blaze of religious privileges-in the midst of prophecies and miracles-in the presence of the Son of God Himself. “The carnal mind is enmity against God.” (Rom 8:7.) Men never saw God face to face but once, when Jesus became a man, and lived upon earth. They saw Him holy, harmless, undefiled, going about doing good. Yet they would not have Him, rebelled against Him, and at last killed Him. Let us dismiss from our minds the idea that there is any innate goodness or natural rectitude, in our hearts. Let us put away the common notion that seeing and knowing what is good is enough to make a man a Christian. The great experiment has been made in the instance of the Jewish nation. We, too, like Israel, might have among us miracles, prophets, and the company of Christ Himself in the flesh, and yet, like Israel, have them in vain. Nothing but the Spirit of God can change the heart. “We must be born again.” (Joh 3:7.)

Let us observe, in the last place, that men’s consciences may be pricked, and yet they may continue impenitent. The Jews, to whom our Lord addressed the solemn historical parable which we have been reading, saw clearly that it applied to themselves. They felt that they and their forefathers were the husbandmen to whom the vineyard was let, and who ought to have rendered fruit to God. They felt that they and their forefathers were the wicked laborers, who had refused to give the Master of the vineyard His dues, and had “shamefully handled” His servants, “beating some, and killing some.” Above all, they felt that they themselves were planning the last crowning act of wickedness, which the parable described. They were about to kill the well-beloved Son, and “cast Him out of the vineyard.” All this they knew perfectly well. “They knew that He had spoken the parable against them.” Yet though they knew it, they would not repent. Though convicted by their own consciences, they were hardened in sin.

Let us learn from this awful fact, that knowledge and conviction alone save no man’s soul. It is quite possible to know that we are wrong, and be unable to deny it, and yet to cleave to our sins obstinately, and perish miserably in hell. The thing that we all need, is a change of heart and will. For this let us pray earnestly. Till we have this, let us never rest. Without this, we shall never be real Christians, and reach heaven. Without it we may live all our lives, like the Jews, knowing inwardly that we are wrong, and yet, like the Jews, persevere in our own way, and die in our sins.

Fuente: Ryle’s Expository Thoughts on the Gospels

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

The contents of chapter 12 are constituted of:

The Parable of the Householder (Mar 12:1-12); The Question of Tribute (Mar 12:13-17); The Question about the Resurrection (Mar 12:18-27); The Question about the First Commandment (Mar 12:28-34); The Question about the Son of David (Mar 12:35-40); and The Incident of the Widows Mite.

Chapter 13 is the discourse of Christ about His second coming delivered to the disciples on the Mount of Olives, in response to questions.

It will be recalled from our study of Matthew that the parable of the householder found in that Gospel (Mat 21:33-46), was one of the three in which Christ formally rejected His nation, after the latter, by its rulers had definitely rejected Him. It will be seen by comparison that Mark, as is His wont, passes on with celerity, omitting those features of the story which were not necessary for his purpose as in the other Gospel.

With the question of tribute begins that series of special temptations of Jesus devised by His enemies toward the last to entrap Him in His speech. The Pharisees and Herodians come first (Mat 22:15-22). The Sadducees next (Mat 22:23-33). The scribe, representing the lawyers next (Mat 22:34-40), and finally Christ silences them all by His question concerning Himself (Mat 22:41-46). We have included in this last section the few verses in which Mark refers to the discourse against the scribes and Pharisees, which in Matthew occupies the whole of chapter 23 (the Woes). And yet brief as Mark is, his abridgment contains the chief characteristics of the corrupt leaders of the nation, which are religious vanity, hypocrisy and greed.

The incident of the widows mite is not found in Matthew, but is in Luke (Luk 21:1-4). How appropriately it follows Christs denunciation of the Pharisees who devour widows houses (Mar 12:40). Note the detailed description here. Where had Jesus located Himself? What was Jesus doing? Whom and what did He see? What is the value of two mites? What does Jesus now do? What does He say? What is the estimate of, or enconium on, the widow? Which gave the more, she, or the rich, and why?

In the occasion for the Olivet discourse, what interesting fact is given by Mark not mentioned by Matthew (13:3)? Marks report is the briefest, Matthews the longest. Omitted in Mark are the parables, which have special reference to the Christian profession (Matthew 25) and the judgment of living nations (Mat 25:31-46). These belong in Matthew, but would be out of keeping with the purpose of Mark. The service of our Lord, as we have seen, is in the foreground. The three characteristic discourses in Matthew nowhere else reported in full are: (1) The Sermon on the Mount, which is the proclamation of the King; (2) The parable discourse in Matthew 13, the mysteries of the Kingdom; and (3) The Olivet discourse, Matthew 24-25, the future of the Kingdom. But why should there be anything at all in the Gospel of Mark about the future things, such as the end of the age, and His return in glory, if only the Servant is described? It will be seen that the predictions are in part at least in view of their service. He forewarned them as His servants of what was to come after His departure.

QUESTIONS

1. Name the leading incidents of this lesson.

2. To what group of parables does that of the householder belong?

3. To what series of questions does that of the tribute belong?

4. What chapter of Matthew contains the woes against the Scribes and Pharisees?

5. What does Mark omit from the Olivet discourse?

Fuente: James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary

In this parable, the Jewish church is compared to a vineyard;

Almighty God to an householder;

his planting, pruning, and fencing his vineyard, denotes his care to furnish his church with all needful helps and means to make it spiritually fruitful;

His letting it out to husbandmen, signifies his committing the care of his church to the priests and Levites; the public pastors and governors of the church:

His servants are the prophets and apostles, whom he sent time after time to admonish thm to bring forth fruit answerable to the cost which God had expended on them;

His Son is Jesus Christ, whom the rulers of the Jewish Church slew and murdered.

The design and scope of the parable is to discover to the Jews, particularly to the Pharisees, their obstinate impenitency under all means of grace, their bloody cruelty towards the prophets of God, their tremendous guilt in crucifying the Son of God: for all which God would unchurch them finally, ruin their nation, and set up a church among the Gentiles, that should bring forth better fruit than the Jewish church ever did.

From the whole, note, 1. That the church is God’s vineyard. A vineyard is a place inclosed, a place well planted, well fruited, and exceeding dear and precious to the planter and the owner of it.

2. As dear as God’s vineyard is unto him, in case of barrenness, and unfruitfulness, it is in great danger of being destroyed and laid waste by him.

3. That the only way and course to engage God’s care over his vineyard and to prevent its being given to other husbandmen, is to give him the fruit of it; that is but a vineyard that God lets out; it is no inheritance.

No people ever had so many promises of God’s favour as the Jews had, nor ever enjoyed so many privileges, whilst they continued in his favour, as they did; yet though they were the first and the natural branches, they are broken off, and we Gentiles stand by faith; let us not be high-minded, but fear, Rom 11:20.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Mar 12:1-11. He began to speak unto them by parables Christ having showed the rulers, chief priests, and scribes, the heinousness of their sin, in rejecting John the Baptist, (Mat 21:28-32,) judged it proper, likewise, publicly to represent the crime of the nation, in rejecting all the messengers of God from first to last, and among the rest his only-begotten Son; and in mis-improving the Mosaic dispensation, under which they lived. At the same time, he warned them plainly of their danger, by reason of the punishment which they had incurred, on account of such a continued course of disobedience and rebellion. The outward economy of religion, in which they gloried, was to be taken from them; their relation to God as his people cancelled; and their national constitution destroyed. But because these were topics extremely disagreeable, he couched them under the veil of a parable, which he formed upon one made use of long before, by the Prophet Isa 5:1. Macknight. A certain man planted a vineyard, &c. See this parable explained at large in the notes on Mat 21:33-46.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

CVIII.

IN REPLY TO THE QUESTIONS AS TO HIS AUTHORITY,

JESUS GIVES THE THIRD GREAT GROUP OF PARABLES.

(In the Court of the Temple. Tuesday, April 4, A. D. 30.)

Subdivision C.

PARABLE OF THE WICKED HUSBANDMEN.

aMATT. XXI. 33-46; bMARK XII. 1-12; cLUKE XX. 9-19.

b1 And he began to speak unto them cthe people [not the rulers] bin parables. {cthis parable:} a33 Hear another parable: There was a man that was a householder [this party represents God], who planted a vineyard [this represents the Hebrew nationality], and set a hedge about it, and digged a bpit for the awinepress in it [The winepress consisted of two tub-shaped cavities dug in the rock at different levels, the upper being connected with the lower by an orifice cut through from its bottom. Grapes were placed in the upper cavity, or trough, and were trodden by foot. The juice thus squeezed from them ran through the orifice to the trough below, from which it was taken and stored in leather bottles until it fermented and formed wine], and built a tower [a place where watchmen could be stationed to protect the vineyard from thieves as the grapes ripened for the vintage], and let it out to husbandmen [the rulers are here [590] represented; and the rental was, as usual, a part of the fruits], and went into another country. cfor a long time. [Jesus frequently refers to this withdrawal of the visible presence of God from the world, always bringing out the point that the withdrawal tests faithfulness. God had come down upon Mt. Sinai, given the law and established the Hebrew nation, after which he had withdrawn. That had indeed been a long time ago; and for four hundred years before the appearance of John the Baptist, God had not even sent a messenger to demand fruit. Some think the hedge refers to the manner in which Palestine was protected by sea and desert and mountain, but the hedge and the winepress and the tower are mere parabolic drapery, for every man who planted a vineyard did all three.] a34 And when {cat} the season aof the fruits drew near, che sent unto the husbandmen a servant, {ahis servants} i. e., the prophets] cthat they should give him {bthat he might receive ato receive from the husbandmen} of the {ahis} bfruits of the vineyard. [ Luk 3:8–He expected the children of Israel to bring forth joy, love, peace, and all the other goodly fruit of a godly life. And he looked to those in authority to bring forth such results, and the prophets were sent to the rulers to encourage them to do this.] 3 And {cbut} the husbandmen btook him, and beat him, and sent him away empty, 4 And again he sent unto them cyet another servant: him also they beat, bwounded in his head, and handled shamefully. cand sent him away empty. b5 And he sent cyet banother; ca third: and him also they wounded, band him they killed: cand cast him forth. band many others; beating some, and killing some. a35 And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. 36 Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them in like manner. [For the treatment of the prophets, see such passages as 1Ki 18:13, 1Ki 22:24-27, 2Ki 6:31, 2Ch 24:19-22, 2Ch 36:15, 2Ch 36:16. For a summary of the treatment of the prophets or messengers of God, [591] see Heb 11:35-38.] 37 But b6 He had yet one, a beloved son: aafterward bhe sent him last unto them, c13 And the lord of the vineyard said, {bsaying,} cWhat shall I do? [ Isa 5:4.] I will send my beloved son; it may be they will reverence him. bThey will reverence my son. [The lord of the vineyard was thoroughly perplexed. The conduct of his husbandmen was outrageous beyond all expectation. He had no better servants to send them unless his only son should take upon him the form of a servant and visit them ( Phi 2:5-8). Being tender and forgiving, and unwilling to resort to extreme measures, the lord of the vineyard resolved to thus send his son, feeling sure that the son would represent the person, authority and rights of the father so much better than any other messenger ( Heb 1:1-5, Heb 2:1-3), that it would be well-nigh impossible for the husbandmen to fail of reverence towards him. In striking contrast, however, with this expectation of the Father, the rulers, or the husbandmen, had just now harshly demanded of the Son that he tell by what authority he did anything in the vineyard.] a38 But the {bthose} ahusbandmen, when they saw {chim} athe son, cthey reasoned one with another, asaid among themselves, {csaying,} aThis is the heir; come, let us kill him, and take his inheritance. cthat the inheritance may be ours. band the inheritance shall be ours. [In thus bringing the story down to the immediate present, and stating a counsel which his enemies had just spoken privately in each other’s ears, Jesus must have startled them greatly. He showed them, too, that those things which made them deem it necessary to kill him were the very things which proved his heirship. They regarded the Jewish nation as their property, and they were plotting to kill Jesus that they might withhold it from him ( Joh 12:19, Joh 11:47-50). That men might hope by such high-handed lawlessness to obtain a title to a vineyard seems incredible to us who have always been familiar with the even-balanced justice of constitutional government; but in the East the looseness of governments, the selfish apathy and lack [592] of public spirit among the people, and the corrupt bribe-receiving habits of the judges makes our Lord’s picture even to this day, though rather exceptional, still true to life. At this point Jesus turns from history to prophecy.] 8 And they took him, c15 And they cast him forth out of the vineyard, and killed him. [After two intervening days the Jews would fulfill this detail by thrusting Jesus outside the walls of Jerusalem and crucifying him there.] a40 When therefore the lord of the vineyard shall come, what will he do unto those husbandmen? 41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those miserable men, and will let out the vineyard unto other husbandmen, who shall render him the fruits in their seasons. c16 [Jesus said] He will come and destroy these {bthe} husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others. cAnd when they heard it, they said, God forbid. [Part of the multitude, hearing only the story, pronounced unhesitatingly the judgment which ought to be inflicted upon such evil-doers, and Jesus confirmed their judgment. But others, perceiving the meaning underlying the parable, shrank from accepting what would otherwise have been to them a very proper ending, and said, Mee genoito, which means literally, Be it not so, and which might properly be paraphrased by our emphatic “Never!” but which the revisers in translating have, with small warrant, seen fit to paraphrase by using the semi-profane expression, “God forbid.” There are fourteen such mistranslations in the epistles of Paul according to the King James version and only one of them ( Gal 6:14) is corrected in the Revised version. In defense of these translations it is asserted that the phrase is an idiomatic invocation of the Deity, but the case can not be made out, since the Deity is not addressed.] 17 But he looked upon them [Thus emphasizing the fact that they had repudiated a most just decree. His look, doubtless, resembled that of a parent surprised at the outspoken rebellion of his children], and a42 Jesus saith {csaid,} aunto them, cWhat then is this that is written, b10 Have ye not read even this scripture: aDid ye never [593] read in the scriptures, cThe stone which the builders rejected, The same was made the head of the corner? aThis was from the Lord, And it is marvellous in our eyes? [The quotation is from Psa 118:22, Psa 118:23, which is here by Jesus applied as a prophecy to the Pharisees, who, in their treatment of him, were like unskilled builders who reject the very corner-stone of the building which they seek to erect. The Pharisees were eager enough in their desire to set up a Messianic kingdom, but were so blindly foolish that they did not see that this kingdom could not be set up unless it rested upon Christ Jesus, its corner-stone. They blundered in constructing their theory of the coming kingdom, and could find no room for one such as Jesus in it.] 43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. 44 And he {c18 Every one} athat falleth on this {cthat} astone shall be broken to pieces: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will scatter him as dust. [The stone, of course, represents Jesus, and the two fallings set forth his passive and active state. In the day when he passively submitted to be judged, those who condemned him were broken ( Mat 27:3-5, Luk 23:48, Act 2:37); but in the great day when he himself becomes the acting party and calls his enemies to judgment, they shall prefer, and pray, that a mountain fall upon them– Rev 6:15-17.] 45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees, c19 And the scribes aheard his parables, they csought to lay hands on him in that very hour, bfor they perceived that he aspake of them. bspake the {cthis} parable against them. a46 And when they sought to lay hands on him, cthey feared the people: {bmultitude; amultitudes,} because they took him for a prophet. band they left him, and went away. [Despite the warning which Jesus gave them that they were killing the Son and would reap the consequences, and despite the fact that he showed that the Psalm which the people had used so recently with regard to him foretold a great rejection which would prove to be a [594] mistake, yet the rulers persisted in their evil intention to take his life, and were only restrained by fear of the people, many of whom were Galilans, men of rugged courage, ready to draw swords on Jesus’ behalf. Since they could neither arrest nor answer him, they withdrew as a committee, but returned again in the person of their spies.]

[FFG 590-595]

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

Mark Chapter 12

The Lord afterwards gives the substance of the whole law, as the principle of blessing between the creature and God, and that which formed the touchstone for the heart in the rejection of Christ. I say for the heart, because the trial was really there, although it was in the understanding that it appeared. Even when there were really orthodox principles (Christ being rejected), the heart that was not attached to His Person could not follow Him in the path to which His rejection led. The system of Gods counsels which depended on that rejection was a difficulty. Those who were attached to His Person followed Him, and found themselves in it, without having well understood it beforehand. Thus the Lord gives the pith of the law-the whole law as essentially divine instruction-and the point at which the counsels of God are transplanted into the new scene, where they will be fulfilled apart from the wickedness or ill will of man. So that in these few verses (Mar 12:28-37) the law and the Son of David are presented, and the latter taking His place as Son of man-the Lord-at the right hand of God. This was the secret of all that was going on. The union of His body, the assembly, with Himself was all that remained behind. Only in Mark the Prophet recognises the moral condition, under the law, that tends towards entrance into the kingdom (Mar 12:34). This scribe had the spirit of understanding.

The picture of the condition that would bring in judgment, which we find in Mat 23:1-39, is not given here (see Synopsis about Mat 23:1-39). It was not His subject. Jesus, still as the Prophet; warns His disciples morally; but the judgment of Israel, for rejecting the Son of David, is not here before His eyes in the same manner (that is to say, it is not the subject of which the Holy Ghost is here speaking). The real character of the scribes devoutness is pointed out, and the disciples are warned against them. The Lord makes them feel also what it is that, in the eyes of God, gives true value to the offerings that were brought to the temple.

Footnotes on Mark Chapter 12

15: That is man under the old covenant, flesh under divine requirement, and no fruit to grow on it for ever.

Fuente: John Darby’s Synopsis of the New Testament

THE WICKED HUSBANDMAN

Mat 21:33-46; Mar 12:1-12; Luk 20:9-19. Matthew: Hear another parable: A man who is a landlord planted a vineyard, and placed a hedge round it, and dug a wine-trough in it, and built a tower. The dense thorn-hedge was to protect it from the intrusion of animals as well as thieves. The wine-trough was located deep down beneath the press, in order to catch the sweet juice of the delicious grapes expressed and running into it. The tower was for rest and recreation, and especially for vigilance against thieves, who might stealthily intrude into the vineyard and spoliate the fruit. It is difficult for Occidentals to conceive the paradoxical abundance of grapes produced by a Palestinian vineyard. I have seen the whole earth burdened with the great clusters of grapes, almost sweet as honey. I could not forbear making myself sick eating them. American grapes, with the exception of California, have no such flavor and sweetness. Truly, the land abounds in corn and wine.

He gave it out to husbandmen, and went away. But when the time of the fruits drew nigh, he sent his servants to the husbandman to receive his fruits; and the husbandmen, taking his servants, beat one, slew one, and stoned another. Again he sent other servants, more than the first, and they did unto them likewise. These servants were the prophets. Isaiah was cut in two with a cruel saw; Jeremiah, imprisoned in a deep well to starve to death; King Ahab ordered the imprisonment and starvation of the prophet Micaiah; John the Baptist, the greatest of the prophets, was beheaded by King Herod.

And afterward he sent unto them his own son, saying, They will reverence my son. But those farmers, seeing the son, said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and take possession of his inheritance. This is precisely what they did. The leading preachers and official laymen regarded him as a competitor, who, if successful, would deprive them of their fat offices. Consequently they conspired against him, and slew him, thus taking possession of the Church, to conduct it in their own way, and receive the emoluments of office. Having taken him, they cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him. They actually arrested Him at midnight of the ensuing day, and on the following morning cast Him out of the city, and nailed Him to the cross on Calvary.

Then, when the lord of the vineyard may come, what will he do to those farmers? They say to Him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and give out the vineyard to other farmers, who will render to him the fruits in their seasons. This was literally done very quickly. God the Father has no incarnation, and is consequently invisible to mortal eyes. He actually came in those vast and formidable Roman armies, who slew a million of Jews with sword, pestilence, and famine, doubtless every one who had been guilty of the above crimes falling in the awful death-harvest that rolled over the city. Then, you see, the Church was turned over to the Gentiles the new people becoming the cultivators of the vineyard during the time of their fidelity to the Proprietor. Otherwise, the same awful calamity awaits them. Here you see clearly that the gospel Church is not a de novo institution, but substantially identical with the Church organized in the house of Abraham, and perpetuated nearly two thousand years under the prophetical and Mosaic economy. You see that the vineyard was not destroyed, but, surviving, was given into the hands of other husbandmen; showing clearly and demonstratively that the identical Church of the patriarchs and prophets, in which Jesus lived and died, was perpetuated and given to the Gentiles. Precisely as those wicked farmers, who met the awful fate, were not the vineyard, so the carnal, self-righteous priests, elders, and Pharisees who killed the prophets and Jesus were not the Church. God has had a holy people in all ages, who have eaten the delicious grapes and drunk the sweet wine of His spiritual kingdom.

Jesus says unto them, Have you not read in the Scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same has become the head of the corner: this was wonderful with the Lord, and was marvelous in our eves? Therefore I say unto you, that the kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given unto a nation bringing forth the fruit of the same. The one falling on this rock shall be dashed to pieces; and on whomsoever it may fall, it will grind him to powder. [Psa 118:22; Isa 8:14; Zec 12:3; Dan 2:34-44] And the chief priests and Pharisees hearing His parables, knew that He was speaking concerning them. And seeking to arrest Him, they were afraid of the multitudes, since they had Him as a prophet. The impression that the Jewish people killed Jesus is a slander on them which they do not deserve. You see here, the leading preachers and Church officers were anxious to arrest Him, and were only restrained through fear of the people. Jesus was an exceedingly popular preacher with the common people, but awfully unpopular with the higher clergy and ruling elders, because they looked upon Him as an official rival, feeling satisfied that if He succeeded, deposing all of them, He would promote His friends to office. You see in the above Scriptures that Jesus is that Chief Corner-stone rejected by the builders i.e., the Jewish officials rebut by the power of the Holy Ghost becoming the Head of the corner. All houses in that country are stone. At the corner a great, solid, and elegantly-dressed stone is laid, with both walls built on it, and thus held together: as they both rest on this one corner-stone, and consolidate the house, since the wonderfully tenacious calcareous cement of that country actually unifies the different stones of the wall into one grand conglomeration. Thus Jesus, the Chief Corner-stone of the gospel Church, not only unites Jews and Gentiles, but all sects, races, and nationalities. How momentous the awful responsibility of dealing with this Stone, since if you fall on it, you are dashed to pieces; and if it falls on you, you are ground to powder! People may be saved, if sincere and true, despite multitudes of heresies. Meanwhile heresy on the Christhood of Jesus, as here you see, is necessarily fatal. O the infinite importance of preaching Christ, as all are necessarily lost who have the misfortune, through Satanic intrigue, to assume position either antagonistical to Him or depreciative of Him. Let us take the alarm. Unitarianism is rapidly, though occultly, everywhere stealing into the Protestant Churches. It bears blight and desolation in its wake.

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

Mar 12:1. A certain man planted a vineyard. See on Mat 20:1. The idea conveys an enlarged view of its magnitude, conformably to what is said in Psalms 80. and Isaiah 5.

Mar 12:2. He sent to the husbandmen a servant. Matthew has the plural, servants. The harmony is, that the steward had servants with him. Those innocent variations tend to strengthen the gospel history: the evangelists did not write in concert.

Mar 12:6. Having yet therefore one son, his well-beloved. Our best lexicons construe the Greek phrase, to designate the only-begotten Son. Some Greek copies on this mission have , perhaps; others have that, and because they will, or may reverence my Son. Though, as St. Peter admits, the jews did not precisely know that Christ was the Lord of glory; yet it appears from the highpriests speech to the council, Joh 11:49; Joh 11:53, that many knew that he was the Christ. By consequence, the magnitude of their punishment corresponded with the magnitude of their crime.

Mar 12:10. The stone which the builders rejected. Mat 22:42.

Mar 12:15. Bring me a penny. A denarion, of which the assarion was one tenth, as stated on Luk 12:6.

Mar 12:16. Whose is this image and superscription? They said unto him, Csars. Few coins before the times of the Csars had the head of the reigning prince stamped upon them. The Hebrew shekel had the golden pot of manna on one side, and on the obverse, the rod of Aaron which budded, as described in Exo 30:13. See the map of Jerusalem. The budding of the dry rod, as the branches of the palmtree on the doors of the temple, was regarded as flattery to the priesthood, and an omen of national prosperity.

Mar 12:17. Render to Csar the things that are Csars. Campbells translation is better: Render to Csar that which is Csars, and to God that which is Gods. Thus the reproach which the Herodians intended for the Saviour recoiled on their own heads. These words imply a command, that all men enjoying protection from the state, must act their part with fidelity in its support.

Mar 12:18-19. Then came the sadducees saying, Master, Moses wrote to us, If a mans brother die his brother should take his wife. These infidels affected to believe the five books of Moses, but considered the other scriptures as apochryphal. See on Mat 22:23.

Mar 12:29. The Lord our God is one Lord, as stated in Deu 6:4-5.

Mar 12:30. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart. He is the sole happiness of man, and the joy of all living beings upon the earth. Beauty and perfection with the creatures fade away; with God they are permanent, unchangeable, and infinitely adorable. What are the fond pleadings of misguided nature for the creatures? Look again: they are gone! The grass withereth, the flower fadeth; all flesh is grass, and its beauties are as the flower of the field. This supreme love then, is the love that never faileth; the true religion, better understood by the heart than by the head. Calamitous indeed were the learned disputations of the rabbins about the first and great command, while in great darkness as to the spirit of the law. God is love, and his law is like himself.

Mar 12:42. A certain poor widow threw in two mites, which make a farthing. is called mite, because it was the smallest coin in circulation. The French Mons testament have liard, the eighth of a penny, but kodrantes is here the fourth of some coin then in use. This widow surpassed them all in charity, because she emptied her pocket, while the rich gave only their superfluities. Most churches and chapels follow the example of the temple in having a box at the door to receive the willing offerings of the worshippers. This widow had her treasure in heaven, while Crsus and Nebuchadnezzar had theirs on earth, a booty of temptation for the Persian armies.

Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Mar 12:1-12. The Parable of the Vineyard.The genuineness of this parable is disputed(1) because it is allegorical in character; (2) because it reflects a later situation and assumes Christs death; (3) because it embodies an open claim to Messiahship which is in consistent with the prudent and guarded answers of Jesus to questions about authority. That this parable, unlike most others, is an allegory, does not render it suspect as an utterance of Jesus (Mar 4:1-34*). That such a parable is out of place before the death of Christ involves the dubious assumption that Jesus could not have viewed His death as marking the end of Gods mercy to Israel. While the Messianic claim is more boldly asserted here than elsewhere, yet throughout this section of the gospel, there is less reticence about the Messiahship, and the moral of the parable is not explicitly drawnwhich does harmonise with the prudence of the sayings of Jesus. On the other hand, if a later composition, the story is, in some respects, strange. Why do the details not fit the Crucifixion, if they are composed after the event (contrast Mar 12:8 with Mat 21:39)? and why is there no allusion to the Resurrection? (See Burkitt, Trans. of Third Congress of Religions, ii. 321f.) The opening of the story is based on Isa 5:1 f., while the words of the husbandmen in Mar 12:7 recall Gen 37:20. The story describes the history of Israel, and implies that Jesus felt Himself to be Gods last appeal to His people, and also thought their rejection of Him would issue in His becoming the foundation of a new community which should inherit Gods kingdom. The quotation in Mar 12:10 f. is from Psa 118:22 f. It is used in Act 4:11 and 1Pe 2:4; 1Pe 2:7.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

Verse 1

The wine-fat; the cistern or reservoir which was to receive the wine when pressed from the grapes.–And built it tower; a watch-tower. The vineyard thus carefully prepared for the operations of the husbandman, represents the Jewish nation, which had been provided with many safeguards against the moral dangers which surrounded it, and with every inducement to be faithful in the service of God. Instead, however, of rendering him the obedience and the honor which were his due, they treated the prophets and the other messengers of Heaven, successively sent to them, in the manner described in the text.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

(Mar 12:1-12). The religious leaders have been exposed as hypocrites, who, thinking only of their own religious reputation, “feared the people,” but had no fear of God. The Lord now sets before them, in a parable, the moral history of the nation to show that, as with the chief priests at that time, so, throughout the past, the leaders had always broken down in responsibility. Moreover, looking on to the near future, the Lord foretells the judgment coming upon the leaders and the nation. Like the vineyard in the parable, Israel had been established in a choice land, and separated from the nations by a law which regulated their lives, and, like a hedge, set bounds around them. Moreover, like the place, digged for the vinefat, provision had been made for the nation to bring forth fruit for God. Further, as with the tower in the vineyard, they were protected from every enemy. Then the nation had been set in responsibility to maintain their unique position and bring forth fruit for God.

In due season, God seeks some return from the nation for all His goodness. Alas! this moral trial of man as exemplified in Israel’s history, only serves to prove his utter ruin. Man has no heart for God, even when so richly blessed by God, and when given every opportunity of realising this goodness.

So it comes to pass that every overture on the part of God, in seeking fruit from the nation, is, not only repulsed, but met by increasing resentment. The first servant is sent away empty. The second is treated with insult. Others are sent, and meet not only insult, but persecution even unto death. Increasingly, the nation shows the failure of man under responsibility. But there is one last test, to see if it is possible to act upon the heart of man. There is one Son – the well beloved Son – He shall be sent, and if there is a spark of goodness in the husbandmen, they will surely reverence the Son. There may be cause of dislike and even hatred in the best of prophets and kings, but in the Son there can be no cause of hatred. Alas! He has to say, “They fought against Me without a cause. For my love they are my adversaries . . . they have rewarded me evil for good, and hatred for my love” (Psa 109:3-5).

The advent of the Son made manifest the real state of the heart of man. Israel would fain have a kingdom without Christ, and the Gentiles would have a world without God, even as the husbandmen in the parable say, “This is the heir, come let us kill Him, and the inheritance shall be ours.” And as it was with the leaders of Israel, in the day of the Lord, so it is with the whole world today. It is increasingly seen that man’s will is to shut God out of His own world. The evolutionist would shut God out of His creation; the politician would exclude God from government, and the modernist would shut God out of religion.

Here, then, we are permitted to see the true character of the flesh that is in us. It can be patriotic and social and religious, but if it is allowed to have its own way it will kill Christ and cast Him out of the world. CHRIST – the Christ of revelation (for the flesh can even invent a Christ of its own imagination) – is the real test, and proves that however fair the outward appearance of the flesh at times, at root it is always in deadly opposition to Christ.

This rejection of Christ brings governmental judgment upon the nation, and would lead to others being taken up from whom God will seek fruit. The Lord quotes their own Scriptures (Psa 118:22-23) to convict them of their sin in rejecting Himself. By this terrible sin they were acting in direct opposition to God; for the One they were about to nail to a cross, God was going to exalt to the highest glory. Nevertheless, the Lord indicates that the time is coming when a repentant remnant will own that what the Lord has done is marvellous in their eyes.

With the conscience touched, but the heart unreached, man is only maddened. Thus, with these wicked men, they sought to lay hold of Him, but for the moment they are hindered by mere policy, for they feared the people. So “they left Him and went their way.” How hopeless the condition of those who deliberately turn their backs on Christ and go their way.

(Vv. 13-17). The religious leaders of the nation having been exposed in all their hatred of Christ, we are now to see the exposure of the leaders of the different parties, into which the nation had become divided. First there comes before the Lord the Pharisees and Herodians. Though opposed to one another, they were united in their hatred of Christ, and alike in their desire to exalt themselves in this world. The Pharisees were seeking a religious reputation by the outward observance of forms and ceremonies; the Herodians were seeking advancement in the social and political world. Of necessity they both find that One who is here entirely for the glory of God must condemn such aims, and hence they oppose the Lord. All that He was, every truth that He taught, His every act, sprung from motives entirely different to those which swayed the lives of these men. Thus, if they come to Christ, it is not to learn at His feet, but in the hope of catching Him in His words. The worldly motives that swayed them had so entirely blinded them to the glory of Christ, and so puffed them up with the conceit of their own powers, and importance, that they actually thought they could catch the Lord of glory in His words.

Moreover, they think that the tactics that can often be used so successfully with their fellow-men can be used with the Lord. Thus by flattery and falsehood they seek to entrap the Lord. They say, “Thou art true, and carest for no man: for Thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth.” This, though true in fact, was not the true expression of their evil hearts. Having, as they thought, prepared the way by flattery, they put their question, “Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar or not?” Their wicked minds had devised a question which, they thought, would compromise Him, whatever answer He gave, be it “Yes” or “No,” with either Jews or Gentiles.

The Lord exposes their hypocrisy with His question, “Why tempt ye Me?” Seeking to catch Him in His words they fall into their own trap and make manifest their low condition, actually before men, and morally before God. In answer to the Lord’s request, a penny is brought to Him, and He asks, “Whose is this image and superscription?” and they said unto Him, “Caesar’s.” Obviously, then, it belongs to Caesar; that being so it is only right to “render to Caesar the things that be Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” The Roman power could find no fault with rendering to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; the Jew could find no fault with the principle of rendering to God the things that are God’s. The fact that Caesar’s money was circulating in the land was a witness to the low condition of the nation in bondage to the Gentile. Alas! in spite of their humiliating position there was no true repentance, for they continually rebelled against Caesar, and they rejected their own Messiah. Perceiving the wisdom of the Lord’s reply, they marvelled, but, alas! they had neither conscience toward God nor man.

(Vv. 18-27). The Pharisees and Herodians having been exposed and silenced in the light of the Lord’s presence, the Sadducees now approach the Lord, only to have their ignorance and infidelity laid bare. The Sadducees were the materialists of that day, and represented the infidelity of the flesh. It has been truly said, “The strength of infidelity lies in putting difficulties, in raising up imaginary cases which do not apply, in reasoning from the things of men to the things of God.” (W. K.). So in this case these wicked men seek to oppose the truth by ridicule. They raise an imaginary case which they judge, shows the absurdity of resurrection. As usual with infidels, they betray gross ignorance of Scripture and ignore the power of God. If Scripture had said that people marry in the resurrection state their imaginary case might indeed have presented a difficulty. If God had no power, the resurrection itself would be impossible.

There is not a line in Scripture to say that the relationships of earth will be continued in heaven. We shall not rise as husbands and wives, parents and children, masters and servants, but in this respect shall be as the angels. We shall not be angels, as people vainly imagine, but like them in being free from earthly relationships. The believer will enjoy privileges, and heavenly relationships far above angels, and the passing relationships of the time state.

As touching the resurrection, the Lord again shows their ignorance of Scripture. They had quoted Moses, in the endeavour to show that the Lord’s teaching was in opposition to Moses; the Lord therefore turns to Moses to expose their ignorance of what He had said. Is it not recorded in the book of Moses that “in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” When the incident at the bush occurred, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had been long dead, yet God still speaks of Himself as their God: He is not, however, the God of the dead, but the God of the living. Though dead to this scene, they still live and will rise again to enjoy the promises of God, which, sin having come in, can only be fulfilled on resurrection ground. Thus the Lord can say to the infidels of that day, as of this, “Ye therefore do greatly err.”

(Vv. 28-34). The Sadducees are followed by a representative of the Scribes, who were the interpreters of the law, and believed that some laws were of greater importance than others. He asks the Lord to give His judgment as to “Which is the first commandment of all?” In His perfect wisdom the Lord passes over the ten commandments which would naturally occur to the mind of man, and selects certain great exhortations from the Pentateuch which sum up the law and express man’s whole duty to God and man.

The first responsibility of man is to maintain the unity of the Godhead according to the Scripture which says, “Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord.” It follows then, that man is responsible to love God more than himself, and to the exclusion of every other object as a competitor; secondly, to love his neighbour as himself. This is the summing up of the whole law and presents the whole duty of man upon earth according to the law. If these two laws were kept none of the other laws would be broken.

The scribe bears witness to the perfection of the Lord’s reply. His conscience tells him that the Lord has expressed the truth. He recognises that to give God His due, and act rightly towards one’s neighbour is of more value than all outward forms and ceremonies of the law. As ever, in God’s sight, the moral condition of the soul is of far greater importance in the sight of God than the outward show of piety.

The Lord recognises the discreetness of this lawyer. As far as intelligence and an honest recognition of the truth goes, he was not far from the kingdom of God. But, alas! he was outside. He saw the truth of what Christ said, but he did not see the glory of Christ, or bow in recognition of the truth of His Person. As one has said, “Whether a person is near or far off from the kingdom of God, it is equally destructive if he does not enter it.” (W. K.). As with many others, the lawyer saw what was in the law, but he failed to see his own deep need as one that had entirely failed to meet the demands of the law, and hence he failed to see the glory of the Person of Christ, and the grace that was in Him to meet the need of those who have entirely failed in their responsibilities.

After this, no man durst ask the Lord any question. Representatives of all classes – Priests, Rulers, Pharisees, Herodians, Sadducees and Lawyers – had come with their questions, tempting the Lord, only to find themselves exposed and silenced. The Pharisee, who professed to uphold religion, had not rendered to God the things that are God’s. The Herodian, who professed to maintain the political interest of Caesar had not rendered to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s. The Sadducee, that boasted in intellect, was remarkable for his ignorance. And the Scribe, who expounded the law, had not kept the law. However opposed to one another, they are all united in opposition to Christ, and in manifesting the complete ruin of man in responsibility.

(Vv. 35-37). Having answered all questions and silenced every opposer the Lord, Himself, asks a question of supreme importance, for it touches the glory of His Person upon which all blessing for man depends. “How say the scribes that Christ is the Son of David? For David himself said by the Holy Spirit, the LORD said to my Lord, Sit Thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.” The questions of His adversaries had been based on the reasonings and imaginations of their own minds: the Lord’s question is based on Scripture, and goes to the root of their solemn position, for it brings to light the mystery of His Person, which they refused to acknowledge. The scribes saw truly that the Messiah would be the Son of David, but they did not see, what the Holy Spirit distinctly states in their own Scriptures, that He was not only the Son of David but also David’s Lord. How can He be both David’s Son and David’s Lord? There is only one answer. He is truly Man, and yet as truly a Divine Person. Refusing to own the truth of His Person they miss the blessing, and the One they reject passes to the right hand of God, there to wait until the time comes to deal with all His adversaries in judgment.

(Vv. 38-40). The exposure of the leaders is followed by the Lord’s word of warning against those who made a great religious profession, but whose one motive was the exaltation of themselves. Such, love display – “long clothing;” public recognition – “salutations in the market-places;” religious pre-eminence – “the chief seats in the synagogues;” social distinction – “the uppermost rooms at feasts;” self-aggrandisement, even at the expense of widows; and religious ostentation when, “for a pretence” they “make long prayers.” How solemn are the Lord’s words, “These shall receive severer judgment.” The greater the pretension, the greater the judgment.

(Vv. 41-44). In contrast to those who have been exposed as religious hypocrites, we are permitted to see that there were those in the nation that the Lord delights to own, represented by this poor widow. The godly remnant that returned from Babylon in the days of Ezra to build the House of God, are still seen in this devoted soul who gave up all her living to maintain the House of God. Ignorant she may have been that this house had been corrupted by man and was about to be destroyed in judgment; but her heart was right with God, and her motives pure. She gave but two mites, but, in God’s sight it was more than all others gave, though they cast in much. They gave of their abundance; “she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.” God judges of the value of a gift, not by the amount given, but by what is kept back for self.

Fuente: Smith’s Writings on 24 Books of the Bible

CHAPTER 12

1 The parable of the vineyard. 13 Touching the paying of tribute. 18 The Sadducees confuted. 35 A difficulty proposed to the scribes.

Ver. 1. Planted a vineyard. Gr. , Vulg. pastinavit. The verb pastinare is especially used of vines. It means to dig the soil of the vineyard, and prepare it for planting vines, So the word repastinare means to dig up vines when they are sterile.

And dug a lake (Vulg.), a receptacle into which the must pressed from the grapes might flow. The Gr. is , i.e., beneath the winepress. For means winepress. Hence the Arabic translates, and dug a winepress in it. S. Matthew (xxi. 33) uses the same expression. For torcular, or winepress, means not only the actual press itself, but the vat or receptacle beneath the press in which the grape juice was received. This last was said to be dug, or, as in Isa 5:1, to be cut out.

Ver. 33. And to love one’s neighbour as oneselg is a greater thing than all holocausts and sacrifices. Holocausts were sacrifices in which the whole victim was burnt and sacrificed to God by fire. This is what God says, “I will mercy [prefer] and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than holocausts” (Hos 6:6). This young man tacitly assents to the saying of Christ, and condemns the scribes, who preferred sacrifices, which yielded profit to themselves, to mercy and the love of our neighbour. And this was why they bade children say to their parents, when they were in need, corban, i.e., oblation (see on Mat 15:6).

Ver. 34. Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. Thou art not far from the way of salvation, for the love of God and our neighbour is the pathway to heaven. Again it means, thou art not far from My Church, by which, militant here on earth, we go to the Church triumphant in heaven. “Still, as yet thou lackest faith to believe in Me as the Messiah, the Saviour of the world, and to obey My commands, so that thou mayest indeed become a Christian. And if thou wilt be perfect, leave all things and follow Me, as the Apostles have done.” When, then, He says, thou art not far, “He shows,” says Victor of Antioch, “that he was still at some distance, and that he ought to reach forward to that which was before, and seek diligently for the things that were yet wanting unto him.”

Ver. 38. Who love to walk in long robes,-stolis (Vulg.). The stole was an elegant garment, flowing down to the heels. Wherefore the Scribes wore it for the sake of ostentation.

Ver. 40. Who devour, Gr. , i.e., who altogether consume and lick up the houses of widows, both by reason of the sumptuous feasts which they ask of them, as well as by the gifts and money which they avariciously extort from them under the pretext of offering prayers for them. “When, therefore,” says Bede, “the hand is stretched out to the poor, it is wont to help prayer; but those men passed whole nights in prayer that they might take from the poor.”

These shall receive greater judgment. A severer sentence of God, and a heavier condemnation shall press upon the Scribes in the day of judgment, because by a pretence of probity they are aiming at wrong-doing; and being clothed in the garments of God, they are fighting on the devil’s side. “Simulated holiness,” says S. Chrysostom, “is a double iniquity.”

Ver. 41. How the people cast money: s, brass (Vulg.), i.e., all sorts of money, whether brass, silver, or gold. For the first money was made of brass, hence all money was afterwards called brass, even when made of silver or gold.

Into the treasury; gazophylacium (Vulg.). For gaza is a Persian word, meaning riches; and is to keep. This was a chest into which gifts were cast by the people, and kept for the service of the Temple, and for supporting the priests and the poor. Hence, also, the porch in which the chest was kept was called by the same name. Thus it is said in John viii. 20, “These words spake Jesus in the treasury (gazophylacio), teaching in the Temple.” So Bede.

Ver. 42. A certain poor widow cast in two mites, which make a farthing. Not as if one mite made a farthing, as Euthymius understands, relying on Mat 5:26. But two mites were equivalent to one farthing, as is here clearly expressed. For a farthing was the fourth part of a little ass; and ten small asses made a denarius. A mite was half a farthing.

Ver. 43. This poor widow hath cast in more than all. For although per se, and other things being equal, the greatest and best alms and oblations is that which is most, yet, per accidens, when other things are not equal, the greater alms is that which is offered with the greater devotion of charity and religion. For God does not so much regard the gift as the disposition of the giver. Again, the greater gift is not that which is of the greater value considered in itself, as that which is the greater and more difficult in respect of the giver. This widow, therefore, in giving a farthing, gave more than all, because she gave all that she had, although it was necessary for her life. And she would have given more if she had had more. For she trusted in God, that He in return would be more liberal to her, and provide for her necessity, according to the saying, “Give God an egg, and receive a sheep.” Others truly gave of their abounding superfluities, as Christ here says. As Titus of Bostra says on Luke xxi. 3, “With such magnanimity and devotion did she offer two mites, that is, all that she had, as if she counted her own life as nothing.” S. Paul gives the a priori reason (2Co 8:12), “If there be a ready mind, it is accepted according to what a man hath, not according to that which he hath not.” As Victor of Antioch says on this passage, “For God does not so much consider the greatness of the gifts, as weigh the greatness and alacrity of the mind.” And Bede, “He weighs not the substance, but the conscience of the offerers.”

For, as S. Thomas says, inasmuch as the widow gave according to her ability, therefore it was the greater affection of charity which was valued in her. S. Ambrose thought the same (lib. 2, Offic. c. 30), “The two mites of that widow surpassed the offerings of the rich, because she gave all she had; but they offered only a small portion of their abundance.” Whence he infers, “The disposition therefore makes the offering poor or valuable, and sets their true price upon things.” (Top )

Fuente: Cornelius Lapide Commentary

MARK CHAPTER TWELVE

Mar 12:1 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 7:1-13 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.

To most this is a simple parable to tell the Jewish leaders that they were corrupt murderers and the text makes it clear that they knew He was talking about them. They knew He spoke about them, but did they realize that they were going to murder him as the men in the parable? Did it really sink into their minds that they were going to be murdering the SON OF THE OWNER?

It would seem that if they did realize this that they would have given more serious thought to what they were planning and the consequences. Christ Himself told them the consequences of what they were plotting. “What shall therefore the lord of the vineyard do? he will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others” Had they really contemplated this portion of the parable you would think that they would have reconsidered.

We should remember that parables were to convey information to some but to hide it from others. The Jewish leaders probably didn’t catch the drift of the details, only that He was talking about them.

Then one must wonder what any of the Jewish leaders would think when they saw Jerusalem destroyed in 70 A.D. – did they think back to this parable and see the vineyard being taken over by others?

The parable simply explained: God is the vineyard builder, He gave it to the promised people to tend. He sent prophets from time to time but they just killed them and finally He sent His Son Jesus Christ and they killed Him. God destroyed the Jews and scattered them across the earth and gave the vineyard to others – the gentiles. Whether the vineyard is Jerusalem, Israel or the spiritual blessing is of discussion. It would seem more to the idea of spiritual blessing rather than a geographical location/area.

It pictures well the thought of Israel rejecting their King/spiritual connection to God and the vineyard being given over to others. The others of course being the church and all that is entailed in that concept.Mixed blessing for sure. The Jews lost while we gained. Because they were cold toward God He shifted His blessing to us. This is not an eternal shift of focus, but only a temporary one. One day the focus will shift from the church back to the Jewish people. God has not separated Himself from them eternally; He has only set them aside for a time while He deals with the Church.

The hedge was to keep the thieves from the vines and the tower was normally where the one guarding the vines lived and watched to guard against intruders. The Jewish people had a hedge around them and God was their protector. He always brought them through.

Today some speak in prayer of setting a hedge around a person to keep them safe. This is one of the thoughts leading to that kind of prayer, though the hedge was for Israel, not particular people in the church age. It should be taken as a general protection of God over the whole, not particular individuals.

One should maybe consider the idea of a vineyard. It would be set up to gain fruit from the tenders. If we are now the husbandmen then our Vineyard owner is desirous of profit from our labors and His vines. We also should consider how we are treating the vines and vine owner. Are we profitable?

There is a real sense in which the taking up of dealings with Israel will be related to the failure of the church. God will one day return the vineyard to the husbandmen – not the original workers but to righteous/ believing Israel – and will again take up dealings with them. The church needs to remember they are temporary workers, not owners of the vineyard.

The winefat that was prepared is the receptacle below the vat where the pressing takes place. The juice drains into the winefat. There does not seem to be any great significance to the winefat other than the fact that the owner set it in place – why – to gain profit from the crop of the vines. There was to be fruit that produced profit and the owner gained no profit from the labor that he had put into the business.

God is not a profiteer, but He does expect fruit from His servants and that fruit will bring Him profit from the investment that He has made in us.

Verse seven is of note. “But those husbandmen said among themselves, This is the heir; come let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours.” The Jews knew He was speaking of them, it might be wondered just what inheritance they had in mind when killing the Lord. Probably just the idea of being rid of this man who had given them fits for three years. To be rid of His teaching, of His miracles and of His influence over their “followers.”

There is also another reality related to the same verse. They had it in mind that the “owner” or as we know, God was not coming back. They had no real concept of the Lord returning for His profit. The owner was in a far country. Many today in the “Church” are living the same way they live as if God is in a far country and not very interested in His creation. Not so, God is very interested in His creation as well as His creatures, thus we know that He will return and dobusiness with those that have kept His profit from Him.

The last portion of verse nine pictures this return “he will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others.” DESTROY is the key to the Jews and they had no idea what Christ was talking about but rather saw His words as just more verbiage to ignore and reject from this false one.

Fuente: Mr. D’s Notes on Selected New Testament Books by Stanley Derickson

12:1 And {1} he began to speak unto them by {a} parables. A [certain] man planted a vineyard, and set an 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.

(1) The calling of God is unbounded, without exception, in regard to place, person, or time.

(a) This word “parable”, which the evangelists use, not only signifies a comparing of things together, but also speeches and allegories with hidden meaning.

Fuente: Geneva Bible 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 Mar 2:1 to Mar 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.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Jesus addressed this parable to all the people present (Luk 20:9) but the religious leaders particularly. The man in the parable represents God, the vineyard is Israel (Psa 80:8-19; Jer 2:21), and the tenants are Israel’s leaders. The parable develops the scene presented in Isa 5:1-2 that is part of a prophecy of God’s judgment on Israel (cf. Psa 80:8-16). God spared no expense or effort to make Israel a choice nation. He had left Israel on its own, so to speak, after He had established the nation.

"Since the whole of the upper Jordan valley and a large part of the Galilean uplands were in the hands of foreign landlords at this time, such a practice was common." [Note: Ibid., p. 417.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Chapter 12

CHAPTER 12:1-12 (Mar 12:1-12)

THE HUSBANDMEN

“And He began to speak unto them in parables. A man planted a vineyard, and set a hedge about it, and digged a pit for the wine-press, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into another country. And at the season he sent to the husbandmen a servant, that he might receive from the husbandmen of the fruits of the vineyard. And they took him, and beat him, and sent him away empty. And again he sent unto them another servant: and him they wounded in the head, and handled shamefully. And he sent another; and him they killed: and many others; beating some, and killing some. He had yet one, a beloved son: he sent him last unto them, saying, They will reverence my son. But those husbandmen said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours. And they took him, and killed him, and cast him forth out of the vineyard. What, therefore, will the Lord of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others. Have ye not read even this Scripture:

The stone which the builders rejected

The same was made the head of the corner:

This was from the Lord,

And it is marvelous in our eyes?

And they sought to lay hold on Him; and they feared the multitude; for they perceived that He spake the parable against them: and they left Him, and went away.” Mar 11:1-12 (R.V.)

THE rulers of His people have failed to make Jesus responsible to their inquisition. He has exposed the hollowness of their claim to investigate His commission, and formally refused to tell them by what authority He did these things. But what He would not say for an unjust cross-examination, He proclaimed to all docile hearts; and the skill which disarmed His enemies is not more wonderful than that which in their hearing answered their question, yet left them no room for accusation. This was achieved by speaking to them in parables. The indifferent might hear and not perceive: the keenness of malice would surely understand but could not easily impeach a simple story; but to His own followers it would be given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God.

His first words would be enough to arouse attention. The psalmist had told how God brought a vine out of Egypt, and cast out the heathen and planted it. Isaiah had carried the image farther, and sung of a vineyard in a very fruitful hill. The Well-beloved, Whose it was, cleared the ground for it, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower, and hewed out a wine-press, and looked that it should bring forth grapes, but it had brought forth wild grapes. Therefore He would lay it waste. This well-known and recognized type the Lord now adopted, but modified it to suit His purpose. As in a former parable the sower slept and rose, and left the earth to bring forth fruit of itself, so in this, the Lord of the vineyard let it out to husbandmen and went into a far country. This is our Lord’s own explanation of that silent time in which no special interpositions asserted that God was nigh, no prophecies were heard, no miracles startled the careless. It was the time when grace already granted should have been peacefully ripening. Now we live in such a period. Unbelievers desire a sign. Impatient believers argue that if our Master is as near us as ever, the same portents must attest His presence; and, therefore, they recognize the gift of tongues in hysterical clamor, and stake the honor of religion upon faith-healing, and those various obscure phenomena which the annals of every fanaticism can rival. But the sober Christian understands that, even as the Lord of the vineyard went into another country, so Christ His Son (Who in spiritual communion is ever with His people) in another sense has gone into a far country to receive a kingdom and to return. In the interval, marvels would be simply an anachronism. The best present evidence of the faith lies in the superior fruitfulness of the vineyard He has planted, in the steady advance to rich maturity of the vine He has imported from another clime.

At this point Jesus begins to add a new significance to the ancient metaphor. The husbandmen are mentioned. Men there were in the ancient Church, who were specially responsible for the culture of the vineyard. As He spoke, the symbol explained itself. The imposing array of chief priests and scribes and elders stood by, who had just claimed as their prerogative that He should make good His commission to their scrutiny; and none would be less likely to mistake His meaning than these self-conscious lovers of chief seats in the synagogues. The structure of the parable, therefore, admits their official rank, as frankly as when Jesus bade His disciples submit to their ordinances because they sit in Moses’ seat. But He passes on, easily and as if unconsciously, to record that special messengers from heaven had, at times, interrupted the self-indulgent quietude of the husbandmen. Because the fruit of the vineyard had not been freely rendered, a bondservant was sent to demand it. The epithet implies that the messenger was lower in rank, although his direct mission gave him authority even over the keepers of the vineyard. It expresses exactly the position of the prophets, few of them of priestly rank, some of them very humble in extraction, and very rustic in expression, but all sent in evil days to faithless husbandmen, to remind them that the vineyard was not their own, and to receive the fruits of righteousness. Again and again the demand is heard, for He sent “many others;” and always it is rejected with violence, which sometimes rises to murder. As they listened, they must have felt that all this was true, that while prophet after prophet had come to a violent end, not one had seen the official hierarchy making common cause with him. Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on Him? was their scornful question. But the answer was plain, As long as they built the sepulchers of the prophets, and garnished the tombs of the righteous, and said, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets, they confessed that men could not blindly follow a hierarchy merely as such, since they were not the official successors of the prophets but of those who slew them. The worst charge brought against them was only that they acted according to analogy, and filled up the deeds of their fathers. It had always been the same.

The last argument of Stephen, which filled his judges with madness, was but the echo of this great impeachment. Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute? and they killed them which showed before of the coming of the Righteous One, of Whom ye have now become the betrayers and murderers.

That last defiance of heaven, which Stephen thus denounced, his Master distinctly foretold, And He added the appalling circumstance, that however they might deceive themselves and sophisticate their conscience, they really knew Him Who He was. They felt, at the very least, that into His hands should pass all the authority and power they had so long monopolized: “This is the Heir; come let us kill Him and the inheritance shall be ours.” If there were no more, the utterance of these words put forth an extraordinary claim.

All that should have been rendered up to heaven and was withheld, all that previous messengers had demanded on behalf of God without avail, all “the inheritance” which these wicked husbandmen were intercepting, all this Jesus announces to be His own, while reprehending the dishonesty of any other claim upon it. And as a matter of fact, if Jesus be not Divine, He has intercepted more of the worship due to the Eternal, has attracted to Himself more of the homages of the loftiest and profoundest minds, than any false teacher within the pale of monotheism has ever done. It is the bounden duty of all who revere Jesus even as a teacher, of all who have eyes to see that His coming was the greatest upward step in the progress of humanity, to consider well what was implied, when, in the act of blaming the usurpers of the heritage of God, Jesus declared that inheritance to be His own. But this is not all, though it is what He declares that the husbandmen were conscious of. The parable states, not only that He is heir, but heir by virtue of His special relationship to the Supreme. Others are bondservants or husbandmen, but He is the Son. He does not inherit as the worthiest and most obedient, but by right of birth; and His Father, in the act of sending Him, expects even these bloodstained outlaws to reverence His Son. In such a phrase, applied to such criminals, we are made to feel the lofty rank alike of the Father and His Son, which ought to have overawed even them. And when we read that “He had yet one, a beloved Son,” it seems as if the veil of eternity were uplifted, to reveal a secret and awful intimacy, of which, nevertheless, some glimmering consciousness would have controlled the most desperate heart.

But they only reckoned that if they killed the Heir, the inheritance would become their own. It seems the wildest madness, that men should know and feel Who He was, and yet expect to profit by desecrating His rights. And yet so it was from the beginning. If Herod were not fearful that the predicted King of the Jews was indeed born, the massacre of the Innocents was idle. If the rulers were not fearful that this counsel and work was of God, they would not, at Gamaliel’s bidding, have refrained from the Apostles. And it comes still closer to the point to observe that, if they had attached no importance, even in their moment of triumph, to the prediction of His rising from the dead, they would not have required a guard, nor betrayed the secret recognition which Jesus here exposes. The same blind miscalculation is in every attempt to obtain profit or pleasure by means which are known to transgress the laws of the all-beholding Judge of all. It is committed every day, under the pressure of strong temptation, by men who know clearly that nothing but misery can result. So true is it that action is decided, not by a course of logic in the brain, but by the temperament and bias of our nature as a whole. We need not suppose that the rulers roundly spoke such words as these, even to themselves. The infamous motive lurked in ambush, too far in the background of the mind perhaps even for consciousness. But it was there, and it affected their decision, as lurking passions and self-interests always will, as surely as iron deflects the compass. “They caught Him and killed Him,” said the unfaltering lips of their victim. And He added a circumstance of pain which we often overlook, but to which the great Minister of the circumcision was keenly sensitive, and often reverted, the giving Him up to the Gentiles, to a death accursed among the Jews; “they cast Him forth out of the vineyard.”

All evil acts are based upon an overestimate of the tolerance of God. He had seemed to remain passive while messenger after messenger was beaten, stoned, or slain. But now that they had filled up the iniquity of their fathers, the Lord of the vineyard would come in person to destroy them, and give the vineyard to others. This last phrase is strangely at variance with the notion that the days of a commissioned ministry are over, as, on the other hand, the whole parable is at variance with the notion that a priesthood can be trusted to sit in exclusive judgment upon doctrine for the Church.

At this point St. Mark omits an incident so striking, although small, that its absence is significant. The bystanders said, “God forbid!” and when the horrified exclamation betrayed their consciousness of the position, Jesus was content, without a word, to mark their self-conviction by His searching gaze. “He looked upon them.” The omission would be unaccountable if St. Mark were simply a powerful narrator of graphic incidents; but it is explained when we think that for him the manifestation of a mighty Personage was all in all, and the most characteristic and damaging admissions of the hierarchy were as nothing compared with a word of his Lord. Therefore he goes straight on to record that, besides refuting their claim by the history of the past, and asserting His own supremacy in a phrase at once guarded in form and decisive in import, Jesus also appealed to Scripture. It was written that by special and marvelous interposition of the Lord a stone which the recognized builders had rejected should crown the building. And the quotation was not only decisive as showing that their rejection could not close the controversy; it also compensated, with a promise of final victory, the ominous words in which their malice had seemed to do its worst. Jesus often predicted His death, but He never despaired of His kingdom.

No wonder that the rulers sought to arrest Him, and perceived that He penetrated and despised their schemes. And their next device is a natural outcome from the fact that they feared the people, but did not discontinue their intrigues; for this was a crafty and dangerous attempt to estrange from Him the admiring multitude.

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary