Mark 12

CHAPTER XII

It is Tuesday of the Passion week. The Sanhedrists had questioned Jesus in regard to his authority and had been asked a counterquestion that silenced them. Then Jesus continued to speak to them in parables. As the first parable spoken by Jesus, Matthew reports that of the two Unequal Sons. It seems that the Sanhedrists wanted to leave at this point, but Jesus detained them long enough to hear another parable. This second parable all three synoptists record.

Mark 12:1

1 And he began to speak to them in parables. The plural shows that Mark knew about other parables although he records only this one. A vineyard did a man plant, and he set a fence around it and dug a winepress-vat and built a watchtower and leased it to vinegrowers and went abroad.

“A vineyard” is placed first because the parable turns on the idea of a vineyard. With a few simple strokes the entire picture is placed before us in vivid, plastic form. It matches the striking parable found in Isa. 5:1, etc., but the action is entirely different. Isaiah makes Israel as such guilty, Jesus makes the rulers of Israel guilty.

A great and wealthy man establishes a wonderful vineyard on his estate and leaves out nothing that a complete vineyard ought to have. “The vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah his pleasant plant,” Isa. 5:7. The details show what it took to make Israel such a vineyard. The vines had to be “planted.” “A fence” had to be built around it to protect the place. This fence may be the law which served as “a middle wall of partition” that protected Israel from the Gentiles, all its regulations and ceremonies keeping even the minds of the Jews from Gentile ways. The twelve tribes were “planted” in a safe corner of the world. The very geographical position of Palestine aided the law in keeping Israel securely fenced in by the high Lebanon mountains on the north, hills and the desert on the east, a desert on the south, and the Mediterranean Sea on the west.

Matthew writes ληνόν, a wine-vat in which the grapes are trodden out; Mark has ὑπολήνιον, the winepress-vat in which the juice is caught. Both will be understood when we know that a winepress is hewn out of the rock floor and shaped like a figure eight, the upper half being a shallow basin for treading out the grapes, the lower half (or lower part of this half) a deeper basin into which the juice flows and from which it is dipped out. The writer saw such a winepress with its winepress-vat in the grounds of the Garden Tomb (the tomb in which Jesus may well have been buried). “The two vats were usually hewn in the solid rock, the upper broad and shallow, the lower smaller and deeper.” Fausset, Bible Encyclopedia. The tower was built for watchmen and served at the same time as a storehouse. The vineyard thus lacked nothing. So Israel had everything, from the Temple on down, for its religious needs. “What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it?” Isa. 5:4.

And now, after all was complete, the owner “leased it (gave it out, ἐξέδοτο, some texts have ἐξέδετο, R. 308) to vine-growers,” his rental being part of the grape harvest as the following shows (not cash as some suppose). He did this because “he went abroad,” literally, “far away from home.” We have this same feature in other parables, 13:34; Luke 19:12; Matt. 25:14, 15. This going abroad pictures the great trust which God imposed on the leaders of Israel: the precious vineyard of his people reposed entirely in their care. Yes, God brought Israel from Egypt to Canaan, planted it, fenced it in, equipped it there, and placed it under these spiritual rulers whose office was continuous. The prophets appear elsewhere in the picture, they were sent for a special purpose at special times.

Mark 12:2

2 And he sent to the vine-growers at the season a slave in order to receive from the vine-growers some of the fruits of the vineyard. And having taken him, they hided him and sent him away empty. And again he sent to them another slave; and that one they wounded in the head and handled him shamefully. And another he sent. And that one they killed. And many others, hiding some, killing others. Matthew combines the slaves into one statement, Luke tells about the three, Mark has the full details.

A vineyard is naturally planted for the sake of the fruit it will yield. But this parable does not center our attention on the productivity or the unproductivity of the vineyard or of its vines as does the parable in Isa. 5 but on the vicious action of these vine-growers to whom the vineyard is leased, and who were to meet the terms of that lease. In what condition the vineyard was under their management, whether full or empty of fruit, is not the point to be brought out. Our eyes are focused altogether on the outrageous vine-growers who were in possession of the precious vineyard when the great owner at the proper season sends for the fruit that is due him according to the terms of the lease.

The δοῦλοι, “slaves,” are thus clearly distinguished from the γεωργοί, “vine-growers.” The slaves are sent at this particular time, the vine-growers are in permanent charge. The latter are the permanent religious rulers of Israel, the former the prophets who were sent at particular times. In the imagery these times are naturally compressed into one time although Mark and Luke and to a degree Matthew indicate the intervals. The slaves are at first sent out singly. To receive ἀπὸτῶνκαρπῶν is partitive, “some of the fruits,” i.e., the owner’s share. When the prophets were sent to Israel, God expected the fruits of contrition, faith and obedience.

This vineyard was not only a law-covenant, and the fruits were not only works of the law that produced at most the need of redemption. We have law and gospel in the vineyard, the full riches of divine grace, and the fruits are according, the chief being faith.

Mark 12:3

3 The outrage follows: they took the first slave sent to them and hided him, literally, “flayed” him, beat him bloody and then sent him away empty. For the reality see Matt. 23:24; Acts 7:52; Heb. 11:37, 38. Jesus does not mince words. He makes the stark, bloody, devilish reality stand out in all its horror. It is without a mitigating circumstance. More than this, as Jesus says these things, the very vine-growers whom he referred to stood before him, and he looked them squarely in the eye—and they knew that Jesus was referring to them, v. 12. Let us not overlook this supreme dramatic feature.

Mark 12:4

4 Now there follow the features of the parable that present unheard-of actions. No ordinary owner of a vineyard ever did a thing such as this owner did: after having his first slave beaten bloody to continue to send other slaves, to have them treated likewise and worse. But this feature of the parable brings out the more the enormity of the crime that is to be illustrated. The patience of God toward Israel’s religious rulers is without parallel in human history—an illustration must be invented to picture it, and the illustration will have to be unreal. The second slave sent received the same treatment as the first, only more of it. They sent him away with a bloody head (κεφαλιόω, not -αιόω, to wound the head) and shamefully mistreated.

In ἠτίμασαν the dishonor of the servant is meant, of course, for his master. There is no need to add that this second slave was sent away empty like the first.

Mark 12:5

5 The incredible features are piled up. Jesus wants them to stand out in the minds of his hearers. So this strange vineyard owner, after having two slaves frightfully abused by his lessees, sends a third to them. Did he know what would happen? But we should remember that what governs here is the reality and not the imagery. It is because the patience of God was so unspeakably great that this parable has to continue as it does. This slave is actually killed by the vine-growers. Murderous before, they are actual murderers now. Surely, that reaches the climax! Far from it.

This sending continues. With “many others” we supply the verb “he sent.” So also with regard to the two nominative participles “some hiding, some killing,” the verb must be drawn from the idea they express, R. 394; on the latter participle see R. 213. God sent far more than three prophets to Israel. We should not understand οὓςμέν and οὓςδέ to mean that after the three single slaves groups of slaves were sent. No, these plurals merely summarize. God went on sending prophet after prophet. Whether Israel had more than one at some time is of no consequence for the parable. The point is the treatment that they received. It was always the same bloody beatings or actual killing, Matt. 23:34, 37.

Mark 12:6

6 Has the parable not gone far enough? The reality demands that it must go still farther. He yet had one, a son beloved. He sent him as the last to them, saying, They will respect my son. But those vine-growers said to each other, This is the heir. Come let us kill him, and ours shall be the inheritance. And having taken him, they did kill him and threw him out outside of the vineyard.

This is, indeed, a climax. He “yet” had one implies that God had no more prophets that he could send, all that was left was his Son. “One” he had, not several sons, for God has only the one essential Son. “A son beloved” describes this “one” whom the owner of the vineyard had left. Here we have a plain case where ἀγαπητός does not mean “only-begotten,” for the “onliness” is expressed in the numeral “one” and would not be expressed a second time. Several sons or children could be “beloved,” but certainly not merely an only child. But this owner had only the one, this well-beloved son.

Him he sent as the last one to the vine-growers saying: “They will respect my son.” This is all that Jesus could say in a parable. Such an action is just as improbable in ordinary life as is the sending of all those slaves after the first one. Where is the human father who would send his son as God actually sent his? But this is the very point of the parable. God’s love and patience exceed absolutely everything that men have ever heard of here on earth. Yet let us not overlook the other point, how Jesus here pictures the corresponding guilt of all those who abused these messengers and finally killed also the son.

If God’s love and patience exceed all bounds, so also does this guilt. Moreover, Jesus pictures Israel’s cumulative guilt. God let the Jews fill up the measure of their guilt to the very top, yea, to overflowing. The justice of this final judgment on the Jews is thus established in the same absolute way.

Some interpreters bring in the foreknowledge of God, meaning that the owner of the vineyard could not have said that the vine-growers would respect his son. The matter of the foreknowledge does not belong in the parable since this is to go deeper by showing us the incomprehensible and unfathomable love and patience of God. To bring in the divine foreknowledge and to puzzle about that in the parable only impairs it by trying to make it include what its imagery cannot include. Each parable illustrates one thing, one side of the divine story and no more.

The son, too, is “sent” as the slaves were. In this respect God’s Son resembles the prophets, and yet they were only δοῦλοι, “slaves,” whereas he remains ὁυἱόςμου, “my Son.” The prophets were God’s slave-servants as a result of being sent; Jesus is sent as result of being the Son. In the one case the mission makes the man, in the other the man makes the mission. The second future passive of ἐντρέπω, “to regard someone,” to respect him, is used without the passive idea, R. 819, it is like the transitive aorist. Yet this future is not prophetic (contra R. 873) since it merely expresses the father’s expectation.

Mark 12:7

7 The prophetic feature begins. Jesus has the Sanhedrists before him and tells these his murderers exactly what they are even now on the point of doing. What they as yet kept under cover he tells them openly to their faces before the assembled crowd of pilgrims (11:18). Each generation of the Jewish leaders allowed the deeds of their fathers by repeating them. They made all the previous murders their own by adding to them; and the climax was reached by the last generation of these leaders in killing Jesus. They put into final practice the lessons in killing taught them by all former persecutors of the prophets by killing God’s own Son. It is thus that the vine-growers in the parable make away with the slaves as well as with the son. The parable is very exact even in this point.

“This is the heir” need not be interpreted with reference to the secret thoughts of the Sanhedrists. See what “they said to each other” in John 11:47–53. They killed Jesus because they feared that he would win all the people and thus make them lose their position as leaders. They thus made away with the true heir in order to seize the inheritance for themselves. Their blind unbelief hid the spiritual nature of the kingdom from them, and thus the fact that they could never hold the outward rule when its inwardness was foreign to them remained hidden from them. They wanted to possess the branch on which they sat by sawing it off from the tree which bore that branch. Δεῦτε is used with plural imperatives or similar subjunctives, here with the hortatory subjunctive: “let us kill.”

Mark 12:8

8 Matthew and Luke say that the son was first cast out of the vineyard and then killed. When Mark reverses this order he does not contradict the other two writers. It will not do to say that Mark has in mind only the action of the parable and not that of the fulfillment. Nor can we regard the second verb as a pluperfect: “they killed him and had thrown him out.” Nor does Mark mention killing first because the killing is proposed in v. 7. What Mark does is to name the worst act last; the sense is: not only did these vine-growers kill the son and heir, they even threw him out outside of the vineyard when doing so. What was actually done with Jesus is too plain for anyone to charge Mark with a deviation from Matthew and from Luke.

Throwing Jesus out of Jerusalem was even worse than killing him. Trench explains it well: “Cut off in the intention of those who put him to death from the people of God and from all share in their blessings.” Ἐκβάλλειντινά (ἔξω, ἐκ, ἀπό) is never used with reference to dragging out a dead body but always with reference to expelling a living person.

The parable is thus again most exact. It agrees perfectly as to the place where Jesus was killed, John 19:17, and Heb. 13:12, 13, “without the gate,” “without the camp.” Compare 1 Kings 2:13; Acts 7:58. Jesus was taken to Calvary, outside of Jerusalem, which indicates also that this parable refers the vineyard especially to Jerusalem, the seat of the Sanhedrin.

Mark 12:9

9 Jesus turns to his hearers and asks them to help to complete the parable. Note how Isa. 5:3, 4 makes a similar appeal. What, therefore, will the Lord of the vineyard do? It is self-evident that the owner of the vineyard will do something, i.e., to those murderous tenants of his. Mark and Luke omit mention of the fact that the answer was supplied by the people and not by the Sanhedrists. Jesus must have told the parable so dramatically that the answer came spontaneously without a moment’s hesitation.

It is so correct because the minds of these pilgrims are centered on the objective facts as these are stated in the parable and are not yet directed toward who these vine-growers really are. The people thus follow their own sense of justice, that justice which will vindicate God’s judgments on all unbelievers. The answer thus keeps to the parable. Jesus accepts it as his own, which leads Mark and Luke to write as they do.

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

We regard the future tenses as volitive and not as merely predictive (R. 873). In the question “the lord of the vineyard” quietly points to his greatness. He will come, not as his slaves and his son came, in their own persons, but with the authority to destroy these murderers by having them tried and put to death. This pictures the omnipotence of God, whom no one can resist when he comes to judgment. Who the “others” would be to whom the vineyard would be given, namely “such as will duly give him the fruits in their season” (Matthew), Pentecost began to reveal. The Jewish Sanhedrin has been obliterated these many centuries.

Mark 12:10

10 The parable is now dropped, its possibilities have been exhausted since it could not picture the resurrection of Jesus. The Sanhedrists present have heard their verdict from their own people. It is, of course, the verdict of Jesus himself as Mark and Luke also present it. According to Luke some of the hearers must have perceived what the verdict really meant, for they cry out, “God forbid!” The correct verdict is now endorsed by a citation of the Messianic word written in Ps. 118:22, 23 (the very psalm from which the Hosanna was taken shortly before!), which is then restated in the plainest possible literal words by Jesus himself. Did you not read this Scripture:

A stone which those building rejected,

This became corner head.

From the Lord came this,

And it is marvelous in our eyes?

“Did you not read?” raises this question in order to make all these people think, to try to understand what, of course, they had read (or had heard read) in the synagogue. This psalm was most likely composed to express the joy of the people after their Babylonian captivity, either on the occasion of the laying of the cornerstone of their new Temple or on the occasion of the dedication of the completed structure. It contained the prophetic lines which Jesus now quotes. More will happen than the rejection of the Sanhedrin and its replacement by better leaders. An entirely new structure will be raised. The old covenant shall yield to a new covenant of which Jesus, although rejected by the Jews, will be the mighty cornerstone.

The climax of the parable, the death of the son himself, is repeated in the first line of the psalm: “A stone which those building rejected” (λίθον is the accusative, attracted from the nominative by the relative ὅν, R. 718). The killing=the rejection, and ἀποδοκιμάζειν means “to discard after fully testing.” Those building are the Jewish leaders, the Sanhedrin, the vine-growers of the parable. But what happened? That very stone “became corner head” (the absence of the articles stresses the quality of each noun). Jesus is the “son” that was killed, the “stone” that was rejected as being entirely unfit for the building, fit to be used nowhere. But his death and rejection did not eliminate him.

The very contrary is true: this made him what the new structure needed above all: “corner head,” cornerstone. Jesus rose from the grave.

The idea in cornerstone is not “bearer and support” of the building. This would be the whole foundation, not the cornerstone. Jesus may, indeed, be called the foundation (θεμέλιος) as he is in 1 Cor. 3:11; but in Eph. 2:20 he is distinguished from the foundation, he is only the cornerstone and thus governs every angle in the foundation and in the building itself. Jesus does this in the great spiritual temple of God, the new covenant.

Mark 12:11

11“From the Lord came this” in the execution of his wonderful plan. The Greek places the emphasis on both ends of the sentence by putting the phrase first and the subject last. The feminine αὕτη (for the neuter τοῦτο) and following it the feminine θαυμαστή are probably due to the Hebrew which uses the feminine instead of the neuter to express abstract ideas; or it may be due to the feminine κεφαλή which precedes, R. 655. The Lord is Yahweh. The psalmist adds properly: “And it is marvelous in our eyes,” ἐν is like the Latin coram, R. 587. All the godly who see this deed of Yahweh’s wonder and praise.

Mark stops short at this point and omits the literal words that Jesus adds as well as the further figurative words about the stone, Matt. 21:43, 44. Mark reports only the final result.

Mark 12:12

12 And they went on seeking to arrest him, and they feared the multitude; for they realized that against them he spoke this parable. And having left him, they went away.

These are the Sanhedrists (11:27), some of whom were Pharisees (Matt. 21:45). The imperfect ἐζήτουν conveys the idea that they kept on in their scheming to arrest Jesus (11:18) in spite of all the warning that he had given them. Their personal resentment of what Jesus had said to them made them keener than ever to arrest him. The aorist ἐφοβήθησαν reports what stopped them, their fear of the pilgrim multitude. Matthew adds the thought that these pilgrims considered Jesus to be at least a prophet. To arrest Jesus was highly dangerous when these thousands of pilgrims filled all Jerusalem, ready at a moment’s notice to break out in the wildest excitement and rage.

The Sanhedrists had also not forgotten the jubilation in connection with the entry of Jesus on Sunday (11:9, 10). So it behooved the Sanhedrists to take no open radical measures.

“For” explains the inner reason back of this situation, namely the fact that the Sanhedrists realized that Jesus spoke the parable against (πρός with this resultant idea, R. 626 at the top) them. The γάρ clause includes both the desire and the fear of the Sanhedrists although it is often referred only to the former. Yet, it is plain that they would not have feared the pilgrims if they had not been evilly stirred by Jesus’ words. So they left him and went away. They intended to be victors when they came, they go away wretchedly defeated. We take it that they also heard the third parable, Matt. 22:1–14, before they left.

Mark 12:13

13 And they sent to him some of the Pharisees and of the Herodians in order to catch him by means of a statement.

Sanhedrists confronted Jesus regarding his authority in 11:27. These were Sadducees and Pharisees, and they certainly fared ill at Jesus’ hands. After this defeat the Pharisees and the Sadducees acted separately. Matthew is not inexact when he tells us that the Pharisees concocted a scheme and sent their delegation to Jesus, he reports the exact fact, and it is unwarranted to stress Mark’s indefinite ἀποστέλλουσι to mean that the Sanhedrists mentioned in 11:27 sent this delegation. Luke is far more explicit regarding this delegation, he calls them “spies who feigned themselves to be righteous,” and their plot was to deliver Jesus into the hands of the governor. The Pharisees pick out some of their own number whom Jesus had not met before, who could thus pose as honest inquirers.

They secure a few Herodians for their purpose who would, of course, also be strangers to Jesus. These are to serve as witnesses whose word would go much farther with the Roman governor than that of any Pharisees. Matthew calls them disciples of the Pharisees.

Since the Pharisees and the Herodians were not friends, the matter would appear as if a dispute had arisen between the two parties, and as if both now appealed to Jesus for a decision. This camouflaged the real purpose of going to Jesus, which was “to catch him by means of a statement,” λόγῳ, i.e., by a statement he may make and not realize until too late its fatal consequences for him.

We meet “Herodians” in the Gospels only incidentally. They appear as a minor political, nonreligious party among the Jews, supporters of the alien Herodian dynasty which ruled under Cæsar, which they regarded as being far preferable for the Jewish nation than Cæsar’s direct rule through Roman procurators. The Herodians thus favored the Roman tax because of the dependence of the house of Herod on Rome. In all such matters the Pharisees opposed them by ever demanding complete independence from Rome and autonomy for the Jews. To them any Roman tax was “unlawful” in the sight of God. Yet as the Pharisees joined hands with their opponents, the Sadducees, in their attack on Jesus, so they here ally themselves with their other opponents, the Herodians, in this attempt to destroy Jesus.

In a few days Herod and Pilate became friends in the same fashion. Matthew uses παγιδεύειν, “to ensnare” as one catches a bird; Mark has ἀγρεύειν, a hunter’s term, “to catch” as one takes game. Yes, the hunters were out after Jesus.

Mark 12:14

14 And having come, they say to him, Teacher, we know that thou art truthful and carest for no one; for thou dost not look on man’s countenance but dost teach the way of God on the basis of truth. Is it lawful to pay poll tax to Caesar or not? Shall we pay, or shall we not pay?

This delegation comes with an astounding acknowledgment of the teaching and the character of Jesus, almost as if they themselves were about to become Jesus’ most ardent disciples. With honeyed words of flattery, a great captatio benevolentiæ, they seek to throw Jesus off his guard. Their masters have coached them well, for they have put into their disciples’ mouth an acknowledgment of Jesus which every Jew should have made most sincerely. In their lying fashion they ape truth quite perfectly. Jesus was indeed ἀληθής, absolutely “truthful.”

The following clauses state how this is meant. “And carest for no one,” οὐμέλεισοιπερὶοὐδενός (idiomatic, “it is no care for thee,” etc.), means that Jesus is swayed by no man’s personal interests. He does not modify the truth in the least to further the opinions or plans of any man. In fact, “thou dost not look on man’s countenance” like the partial judge to see who the person is before him and pronouncing a different sentence for a friend than for a stranger or for an enemy. It is all the same to Jesus who faces him, his verdicts are invariably the same. All this is made specific by adding the positive after the negative: “on the contrary (ἀλλά after negatives) thou dost teach the way of God on the basis of truth.” This final phrase is emphatic. “The way of God” (Hebrew derek) is the way he marked out for every Israelite to follow. Jesus taught that way “on the basis of truth,” ἐπʼ ἀληθείας, on the ground of reality.

He taught what was true about the way of God over against what was not true. He taught the solid facts, nothing else.

This elaborate preamble will certainly coax Jesus to live up to the estimate thus made of him: he will consider no man, not even imperial Cæsar in Rome, when giving his answer to the question now to be proposed to him. To men who think of Jesus so highly he will certainly speak without reserve. He is assured by them in advance that, no matter what men like the Sadducees will do, these men who are now speaking to Jesus will accept and prize his answer and will thank him for it from the bottom of their hearts. As one tries to throw a wild animal off its guard in order to kill it, so did these Pharisees. They were luring him to work his own destruction λόγῳ, by means of an unguarded statement that he might make. Jesus certainly lived up to the estimate here made of him: he saw their hypocrisy (Mark) and craftiness (Luke) with his eyes of truth (John 2:24, 25).

It was silly on the part of these men to try to fool Jesus in this way. Even a lesser mind than that of Jesus could have detected the false tone in their flattering words.

Their question follows: “Is it lawful (ἔξεστι) to pay personal tax to Cæsar or not?” The point is focused by two deliberative subjunctives (v. 15): “Shall we pay, or shall we not pay?” See R. 928 on the subjunctives in principal clauses. The aorists δῶμεν are effective: “actually pay.” Here are men who want to walk “the way of God” also in this important matter. The answer is thus almost laid upon the tongue of Jesus. He, whom no man’s fear or favor could possibly sway, would surely not stop to think but would say right out: “In God’s eyes it is not lawful!” Κῆνσος is the poll tax that was exacted from every individual for his own person and was thus considered by the Jews as a special badge of servitude to the Roman power; hence the disputes among the rabbis about paying especially this tax. Compare Matt. 17:25 and note that the τέλη (plural) are levies on goods and wares at harbors, piers, and city gates, which were far less galling to the Jews.

Mark 12:15

15 But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said to them, Why are you tempting me? Bring me a denarius that I may see it. And they brought it. And he says to them, Whose this image and the superscription? And they said to him, Cæsar’s. And Jesus said to them, Duly give the things of Cæsar to Cæsar and the things of God to God. And they were marvelling at him.

Matthew has Jesus address these Pharisees as “hypocrites” and says that Jesus perceived their “wickedness.” Mark says that Jesus knew “their hypocrisy.” This is a sample of how the Pharisees trained their disciples. “Why are you tempting me?” exposes their secret, vicious intention in a flash. And these liars have no defense. Yes, Jesus told them the truth without fear or favor!

Though they are unworthy of an answer, Jesus answers their question in his own impressive way. He asks that they bring him a denarius, the coin with which the poll tax was always paid. “That I may see” sounds mysterious—what was there to be seen in this little coin? The purchasing value of the denarius was that of a day’s ordinary labor, the wage of a Roman soldier, 17 cents in our coin. The Roman Senate had the right to mint only copper coins; the right to mint gold and silver coins was reserved for the emperor. The denarius was a small silver coin that was usually stamped with the emperor’s head (occasionally with that of a member of his household) and invariably with the name and the title of the reigning emperor.

Mark 12:16

16 They promptly hand Jesus the desired coin. Luther writes: “Jesus begins in a childish and foolish way as though he did not know the image and the inscription and could not read so that they quickly thought, surely here we have him, he is afraid and intends to dissimulate about the emperor and dares not speak against him. But he takes the word right out of their mouth, making them surrender with their confession. They dare not be silent, for just as they bade him answer, so now he bids them answer. If they were silent, he would say: If you will not give answer to my question, neither will I answer your question (11:33).”

When Jesus asks: “Whose is this image?” etc., the question seems so innocent and harmless that these disciples of the Pharisees see no reason to hesitate and thus reply with alacrity, “Cæsar’s.” Intending to dig a pit for Jesus, they tumble into it themselves. They unwittingly answer their own question. All that Jesus does is to point this out to them. Trench, Synonyms, I, 78 points out the exact meaning of εἰκών, “image,” which always implies a prototype, which it does not only resemble but from which it is actually drawn. It is the German Abbild which presupposes a Vorbild. The emperor’s face is depicted on the coin; so the sun shines in the water, the statue presents the man, the child is the image of the parent. But ὁμοίωμα or ὁμοίωσις, “likeness,” means only resemblance and does not in itself include derivation: two men may look alike; one egg resembles another.

Mark 12:17

17 The astounding answer of Jesus follows. Matthew inserts οὖν, “therefore,” which shows that it is only a deduction from the admission that the Pharisees have just made. Note ἀπόδοτε in which ἀπό gives the verb the meaning “to give what is due,” what one’s obligation requires him to give. The perfection of Jesus’ answer was recognized by his hostile questioners when they heard it, and few have ever found fault with it since that time although many have failed to see all that the brief words convey.

The perfection of the answer is its completeness. The Jews considered the poll tax by itself whereas the only proper way to look at it was to place it among all “the things of Cæsar” and then to look at these in connection with (καί) all “the things of God.” Then all difficulties, those of the poll tax and a thousand others, disappear. The trouble with so many casual questions is that we look at only the one question and fail to rise to the comprehensive view which takes in the whole domain of which the one question is only a trivial part. Jesus always saw the whole, and Paul rises to the same height, notably in solving the intricate problems in Corinth. The wisdom that does this is from above.

Jesus asked for an actual coin, which was then produced out of the wallet of one of his questioners. All of them carried such money. Jesus makes them say that this is the emperor’s coinage. They have accepted it, and it is their money, the money accepted by their people. This means that their nation belongs to the empire. This coinage was one of the advantages they enjoyed under the emperor’s rule and was a sample of other similar advantages.

The emperor was their ruler—this coin with its image, which was taken from their own pockets, is the incontestable evidence. In the providence of God the Jews are this emperor’s subjects. That suffices. And that settled all their obligations toward the emperor, the matter of paying him the poll tax now in force and all other duties toward him. “Duly give the things of Cæsar to Cæsar” covers all their obligations to “the higher powers ordained of God,” Rom. 13:1–7. “The things of Cæsar” include not only tribute but fear and honor as well. Whether a government makes this tribute easy for us or hard makes no difference. Our part is plain—let the rulers look well to theirs as also being answerable to God who rules also over them.

But this is only a part of the answer. The question: “Is it lawful or not?” referred to God: “Is the payment of this tax in harmony or in dissonance with our obligation to him?” Therefore Jesus answers by adding “and the things of God to God.” This “and” places the two obligations side by side; there is no clash between them but quite the contrary. “The things of God” are all that our relation to him involves: contrition, faith, love, worship, obedience, submission to his providential guidance, even to his correction and chiding.

But we misunderstand Jesus when we have him say that the obligation to God has nothing to do with the obligation to our government. Even the Pharisees and their disciples were not that shallow as their question shows. The “and” of Jesus intends to cancel the “or” of his questioners (in both v. 14 and 15). These are not alternatives, they harmonize, yea, more: in giving to God what is God’s we will for his sake give also to the ruler what is his. Our obligation to God covers everything in our life, its citizenship as well as our religion. This “and” connects a small field with the whole field. And only by seeing both in their true relation do we see either aright. From Cæsar Jesus rises to God—no man would suppose that he merely parallels them.

The emperor’s image was on the coins in the pockets of the Jews, and Jesus pointed to that image when he said: “Duly give the things of Cæsar to Cæsar.” He connected the obligation with the image. When he now adds in identical words “and the things of God to God,” who can help but think of a corresponding connection of this obligation with an image, namely the image of God, in which he created us, and which his Son now restores in us? To say the least, the thought is captivating. In fact, only as we truly attain in us God’s image will we truly render to him what is his due from us.

Jesus acknowledges the state as a divine institution that is willed by God. His own conduct before Pilate exemplifies this fact, in particular his word recorded in John 19:11. His word about Cæsar treats the state and our relation to it as a separate domain, and the doctrine of the separation of church and state is thus the only legitimate conclusion to be drawn from what he says. Yet church and state are not mere parallels and equals. Our obligations to God are the whole of life, those to the state one part of this whole. Although church and state are separate in the way indicated, there is no gulf between them.

They are not like two watertight compartments. The church will always put conscience, namely as governed by God, into our relation to the state (Rom. 13:5). The church constantly contributes this to the state. What the state normally contributes and ought always to contribute to the church Rom. 13:3, 4 makes plain. Thus each aids the other, but the church aids in the higher way. When either seeks to control the other, usurps the functions of the other, havoc results for both as history bears witness.

Mark states only that “they were marvelling at him,” ἐκ strengthening the verb: “marvelling greatly,” and the imperfect picturing this as continuing. But that was all. The verb “to marvel” is often used to state this inferior effect. Luke shows why these Pharisees marvelled, namely because they could not take hold of his word for their evil purpose; Jesus had nullified their efforts completely. And so, as Matthew states, they left him and went away.

Mark 12:18

18 And there come Sadducees to him, such as claim there is no resurrection, and they proceed to inquire of him, saying, Teacher, Moses wrote for us, If one’s brother shall die and leave behind a wife and leave not a child, let his brother take his wife and raise up seed for his brother. Seven brothers there were. And the first took a wife and, dying, did not leave seed; and the second took her and died, not leaving seed behind; and the third likewise; and the seven did not leave seed. Last of all also the wife died. In the resurrection of whom of them shall she be wife? for the seven had her as wife.

Matthew writes “on that day,” namely on Tuesday. This time a group of Sadducees (freethinkers, loose livers, see 8:11) confronts Jesus, who, moved by the opposition of their entire party to Jesus had conceived of a way to trip Jesus and at the same time to maintain their skeptic views against the orthodox Pharisees. Οἵτινες means “who are such as,” and λέγουσι means “they claim.” Only the denial of the resurrection is mentioned as constituting the teaching of the Sadducees because this denial is the point at issue here. In doctrinal statements we ourselves use the present tense, so we here have εἶναι in the indirect discourse instead of ἐστί. With all due formality “they proceeded to inquire” of Jesus (descriptive imperfect, which makes us wonder what the answer may be).

Mark 12:19

19 These Sadducees do not resort to flattery as the delegation of disciples of the Pharisees had done. As Sadducees they feel their lofty superiority and would not exalt Jesus by even flattering hypocrisy. Josephus comments on their coarse manners, a sample of which appears in John 11:49. Whereas they formally address Jesus as “Teacher” they really intend to show what a wretched teacher he is. They briefly summarize the Mosaic law regarding levirate marriage (Deut. 25:5, etc.). The older grammars suggest that ἔγραψε implies a divine command and construe ἵναλάβῃ as stating that command: “that his brother should take,” etc.; but ἵνα is here nothing but an imperatival expletive with the volitive subjunctive (R. 933) and is equal to the imperative (B.-D. 470, 1): “let his brother take his wife,” etc. The idea was, not to let the dead childless brother’s line die out; the first son of the new marriage (not other later-born children) would be reckoned as the dead man’s child.

Mark 12:20

20 So far the preamble. The real question now follows. The Sadducees relate the story with a good deal of detail. We first hear that there were seven brothers, and then the story begins with the first who married a wife, died, and left no child. The Sadducees recite the whole case as though it were real, and Jesus does not contradict them regarding the reality. It is wrong to call even Sadducees liars without proper evidence. Although they use this case involving seven brothers with great gusto, for the sake of their argument two brothers would have been sufficient, and it is certain that cases of various kinds occurred frequently among the Jews.

Mark 12:21

21 The story goes on, the second and the third brother marry this wife, and these two also die childless.

Mark 12:22

22 The rest of the seven need not be mentioned in detail; suffice it to say that none of the seven left seed. That is, of course, a vital point in the inquiry. The moment one brother would have begotten a child, the levirate marriage would have ceased, and, as far as the resurrection is concerned, the claim could be set up that she was this brother’s wife in the hereafter. So all seven brothers die childless, and last of all the wife dies. Her death is necessary for the argument in order to transfer all the persons concerned into the other world and thus to show from actuality and not merely hypothetically how absurd the resurrection appears when it is considered in the light of Deut. 25:5, etc. The old trick of playing one word of Scripture (one that seems to suit our error) against some great Scripture doctrine, which is buttressed by any number of Scripture words, was practiced already in the days of the Sadducees.

Mark 12:23

23 The question on which Jesus is to impale himself now follows. “In the resurrection” (ἐν temporal), since marriage involves the bodies, and since the resurrection is said to bring forth the bodies again, “of whom of them shall she be wife?” This is re-enforced by the reminder (γάρ) that here on earth all seven of the brothers had her as a wife.

That is the conundrum proposed to Jesus. The Sadducees are ready, for the sake of argument, to grant that there is a resurrection, that these dead bodies of ours shall rise again from their graves. But then what about this woman? All seven brothers were equally her husbands—in the resurrection will all seven together be her husbands? The very idea is monstrous already in this life and how much more in the life to come! Or which one of the seven shall be her husband, and why the one, and why not some other one of the seven, she having had a child by none?

When seven hold equal rights, why set six aside? Again an impossible situation. The Sadducees are certain that there is no resurrection, and that Moses himself proves it in Deuteronomy, and that no man can overthrow this solid proof. We may suppose that they had tried this proof in controversy with many a Pharisee and had made a laughingstock of every opponent. Jesus was to be the next victim.

The logic offered in this case is a reductio ad absurdum of the argument presented by the defenders of the resurrection. This argument would be sound if the resurrection really involved an absurdity. The Sadducees think that the absurdity can be proved by the case of the seven brothers and the one wife. They think that this case involves what the logicians call a dilemma, either horn of which offers an impossible, untenable, even a ludicrous situation. The fallacy of this logic lies in the falsity of the assumption that in this Sadducaic dilemma tertium non datur. These men thought that they were wielding a two-edged sword, either edge of which would prove fatal to Jesus, and they never dreamed that he would strike the flat side of their blade and snap it off at the very handle.

This affords a sample of how some men study the Scriptures by means of their own supposedly infallible logic. These deniers of the resurrection still have many followers. The theological supposition that Judaism developed the doctrine of the resurrection at a late day (say in Solomon’s time), and that it was little known even after that period should no longer be advanced as a theological fact. Abraham believed that God could raise his son from the dead (Heb. 11:19). Among the Jews only the skeptic Sadducees disbelieved the resurrection, and their very objection shows how extensively the doctrine was believed. Between these two terminals there is extensive Scripture evidence, and even Abraham speaks of the resurrection as something that was long and fully known.

Mark 12:24

24 But Jesus said to them: Are you not deceiving yourselves for this reason that you did not know the Scriptures nor the power of God? For when they rise up from the dead they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are as angels in the heavens. But concerning the dead, that they are raised up, did you not read in the Book of Moses, on the Bush, how God spoke to him, saying, I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of dead men but of living men. You are greatly deceiving yourselves.

The ἔφη is a mere variant of εἶπε. Jesus proceeds to puncture the bubble that has been blown by the ignorant folly of the Sadducees. We regard πλανᾶσθε as a middle: “are you not deceiving yourselves?” (M.-M.) and not as an active: “are you not erring?” (our versions). The Sadducees deceive themselves by drawing a false conclusion from Deut. 25:5, etc., one that does not lie in the words about the levirate marriage. How the Sadducees came to do this the causal participle μὴεἰδότες, which explains διὰτοῦτο (R. 700), explains: “because you did not know the Scriptures,” etc. Any thorough knowledge of the Scriptures would have made it impossible for the Sadducees to misuse the Deuteronomy passage as they did.

This guilty and by no means unavoidable and thus excusable ignorance on the part of the Sadducees involves them deeply. Their Old Testament plainly teaches the resurrection of the dead, and in spite of it, and although they have had these Scriptures constantly before their eyes, they “did not know” what these Scriptures teach on so important a point. This is how they come to abuse Moses’ word. The Sadducees run in a false premise that is absolutely foreign to Moses, namely that in the other world the same conditions prevail that obtain in this world. Where does the Old Testament teach anything of this?

“Nor the power of God” have they known, i.e., from the Scriptures. This is not God’s power to raise the dead but his power in regard to the dead bodies when he raises them, as if the only possible way for him to raise them would be to make them exactly as they were in this life. What a pitiful conception the Sadducees had of the power of God in the world to come! That conception was the product of their blindness and not of the revelation which God had placed in their hands. But that is exactly the way in which many handle the Scriptures to this day, and do that also regarding the very revelation concerning the resurrection of the dead. Jesus declares that the Old Testament reveals the resurrection, even the power of God in the way in which he will raise the dead; but theologians of great learning deny what Jesus asserts regarding the Old Testament. One asks himself how they can continue the self-deception of the Sadducees.

Mark 12:25

25 The γάρ clause points out where the great error lies. With one stroke it sweeps away the seven men that the Sadducees use in their self-deception. The horns of the dilemma on which Jesus is to impale himself crumple up and fade into nothing. “For when they rise up from the dead they neither marry (namely men) nor are given in marriage (namely women),” R. 392. Luke 20:35, 36 expands this by emphasizing the fact that Jesus speaks of the resurrection of the blessed in the condition of heaven. The entire arrangement of sex, marriage, reproduction, and childbirth, and any laws pertaining to these is valid for the earthly life only and not for the life to come. The Sadducees should have known this from the Scriptures—they are now told this.

But this difference between our present life and that to come does not mean that our bodies will be discarded. Jesus expressly says, “When they shall rise up from the dead,” i.e., when their bodies shall rise up out of the graves. What else could rise up thus?

“But they shall be as angels in the heavens,” says Jesus who came from heaven. He does more than to refute his opponents, he instructs them and us besides. Not “angels” but “as angels” in regard to sex and marriage. “Just as the children of the resurrection no longer die (in heaven), so also they no longer need marriage to replenish the race.” Besser. “Where there is no dying, there is also no succession of children.” Augustine. As the number of the angels is complete and fixed, so will be that of the children of God in the resurrection.

This is already enough to establish the likeness between the angels and the saints. But we may add that our bodies will be lifted above the narrow limitations of matter as it is at present; they will be made perfect instruments of the spirit to accord in all things with the glorious conditions in the world to come. The view that the angels possess corporeity is without a Scripture basis. This old speculative view assumes an ethereal, firelike body for the angels; and, when it is consistently held, a body of some indefinable form also for God. But the Scriptures know of angels only as πνεύματα, “spirits,” and in many connections use this term as the opposite of all that is bodily or material. See the fuller discussion in Philippi, Glaubenslehre, II, 296, etc.

When angels appear to men on earth they are given a form in order to be visible just as Jehovah assumed a form in the theophanies. On the phrase ἐκνεκρῶν and its perversion see 9:9.

Mark 12:26

26 The Sadducees appealed to the Scriptures (like Satan in Matt. 4:6) falsely; Jesus crushes this appeal by himself appealing to the Scriptures truly (as in Matt. 4:7). The Scriptures are the true court of appeal. Jesus unmasks one of the hidden batteries of Scripture and delivers a volley which is the more annihilating because it comes from an unexpected quarter. But why does he use Exod. 3:6 or its parallels instead of obvious passages such as Dan. 12:2? Some answer that he does this because the Sadducees accepted only the Pentateuch and rejected the prophetic books; but the proof for this seems to be too slender. Jesus probably used Exodus because this passage involves a deduction as proof for the resurrection. The Sadducees had used Deuteronomy with a false deduction, Jesus shows them how to use Scripture with a true deduction, one that clearly lies in the Scripture words themselves and does not go one inch beyond them.

“Concerning the dead, that they are raised up” stresses the point at issue once more. Jesus plainly says “the dead” and shuts out any misconception about the verb “raised up” (present tense in a doctrinal proposition). “The dead” are the dead bodies in the graves; these bodies shall be raised up by being made alive again and glorified at the last day. Some modernistic exegesis says, “Positive proof of the resurrection—or rather of the life after death.” “He thought of the life after death as nonmaterial.” But this modernistic explanation is unwarranted. The resurrection is not merely life after death. The whole question at issue in this discussion with the Sadducees is concerned about the dead bodies in the graves—shall they be raised up and live again or not? On this question Jesus asks with a tone of surprise: “Did you not read in the Book of Moses, on the Bush?” The phrase ἐπὶτῆςβάτου is complete in itself and not elliptical for “in the passage about the bush,” as R. 603 thinks.

This is substituting English for Greek. “On the Bush” marks the section quite exactly. The Sadducees had, of course, read this word—but how? Jesus cites a word that was uttered by God in person and is recorded as having been uttered by him and not merely a regulation that was communicated through Moses for the period of the old covenant: the arrangement of the levirate marriage.

This word is the covenant name which God gave to himself: “I, the God of Abraham,” etc. We need not state how the Jews gloried in this name and title. It connected them with God as his children through the patriarchs; it placed them into the covenant by which this connection was made; and it made that covenant the seal by which all the promises it contained were divinely guaranteed. Among these promises was “the resurrection of the dead.”

Mark 12:27

27 The asyndeton now lifts the cover and reveals what lies underneath: “He is not the God of dead men but of living men,” νεκρῶν and ζώντων are masculine and without the article in order to stress the quality of the terms. The predicate is Θεός (in Matthew ὁΘεός). Since Θεός is used as a proper noun, the sense is the same whether the article is added or not in either the subject or the predicate. This is done also with other terms that denote only one existing person or object. The emphasis is on the two genitives: not the God of dead men but of living men.

“Dead men” are men whose bodies are lifeless, are lying in the graves. If there is no resurrection, then the bodies of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob would lie dead forever, and that would make God “the God of dead men”—an impossible thought. That would mean that death was not conquered; that death, thus holding its prey, was stronger than God; that redemption had failed, leaving death still triumphant. But no; the resurrection proves that God is “the God of living men.” Death has suffered its deathblow. Redemption has not failed. It has turned the death of God’s saints into a mere sleep.

The proof is the resurrection by which God wakes these dead bodies from their slumber. The precious dust of God’s saints may, indeed, to our eyes appear as other dust, dead dust; in reality, God, Christ, heavenly power are over and in that dust—it is living dust, we shall see it live in glory forever. Thus the very name and title which God gave himself in the Old Testament as early as Exodus proves the resurrection

The strange interpretation is offered that the souls of the patriarchs are in sheol, the fabled “realm of the dead,” and that Christ would release their souls from sheol, and that this would be their resurrection—proving God to be “the God of the living.” Besides inventing this kind of a sheol this interpretation turns Jesus’ refutation of the Sadducees into a farce. To have denied the resurrection of the dead bodies and to have substituted, no matter what statement regarding only the souls, would have been a piece of deception, which, if detected, would destroy not only the whole argument but with it the whole character of Jesus.

The same thing holds true when sheol is left out, when God is made the God of the living only because the souls continue to live after leaving their bodies. It is juggling with words to call the patriarchs “not absolutely dead men, nonexistent men,” but “living” because they are enjoying eternal life in heaven. Then the Sadducees (ancient and modern) would be right in asserting that no resurrection of the dead bodies will take place. Jesus himself would be a Sadducee. He would only pretend to say something “concerning the resurrection of the dead” (Matthew’s phrase), namely assert its reality when, in fact, he says nothing about it at all and just omits and thus abolishes its reality.

“Greatly are you deceiving yourselves!” intensifies what Jesus has said already in v. 24. The verb is again the middle: “you are deceiving yourselves.” This deception is no small matter; “greatly” states its full seriousness. Paul brings out all the fatal results in 1 Cor. 15:13–19—no better commentary can be offered. The denial of the resurrection of the body denies not merely one great fact but unravels the whole plan of salvation and leaves us “the most wretched of men.”

Mark 12:28

28 And one of the scribes, having come to him after having heard them disputing, having known that he answered them excellently, inquired of him, What kind of precept is first of all?

In 11:27 the Sanhedrists confront Jesus; these were Sadducees and Pharisees combined in their official position. In 12:13 the disciples of the Pharisees come with a few Herodians. In 12:18 a group of Sadducees tries itself on Jesus. Matthew tells us that the Pharisees were delighted because Jesus muzzled the Sadducees regarding the resurrection (in which the Pharisees believed firmly, Acts 23:8).They at once held a meeting and put forward one of their number who was to put another question on which they hoped again to receive the endorsement of Jesus. This man is a νομικός (Matthew), an expert in the law, “one of the scribes” (Mark) who was trained in and had graduated from the interpretation of the law (see 7:1). This man is perfectly innocent of any evil intent, he was perhaps urged to speak to Jesus for this very reason.

To make the motive of either this scribe or of the Pharisees back of him the hope to entangle Jesus as was done in previous attacks on him is unsatisfactory. The outcome of the questioning is entirely too friendly for that. Mark tells the story as it pertains to the scribe alone, Matthew as it involves the whole assemblage of the Pharisees who went along to hear what Jesus would say.

Three participles sketch this man for us, all three being aorists. As regards their sequence ἀκούσας is first; he heard Jesus and the Sadducees disputing. Next is εἰδώς; he knew that Jesus did answer them excellently (ἀπεκρίθη is changed from a present tense just as the English changes to a past tense after a verb in the past). It is thus that he comes πρός, to Jesus, pleased with what he has just heard. This time Mark uses the aorist ἐπηρώτησεν, “he inquired,” whereas he usually has the descriptive imperfect; the aorist merely states the fact. When Matthew adds “tempting him,” all that follows shows that the word is here not meant in an evil sense but merely as trying Jesus out to see how he would answer this disputed question.

Is ποία qualitative or nonqualitative? It may mean “what kind of” or just “which.” In the one case the scribe would ask: “What quality in a divine precept is it that makes it rank as first of all?” In the other: “Which one specific precept must be rated as the very first?” As regards the question recorded in Matthew, R. 740 wavers but as regards the question used by Mark decides for the nonqualitative meaning. What decides in both cases is the answer which Jesus gives; he offers two precepts as being πρώτηπάντων, “the first of all.” The qualitative answer calls for a qualitative question.

In order to understand both the question and the great answer we should recall that the rabbis counted no less than 613 commandments, 248 positive, 365 negative. To obtain so many they used gematria, a cabbalistic method of interpretation which enabled the rabbis to interchange Hebrew words whose letters have the same numerical value when they are added. Among so many commandments some would, of course, be less important than others, and in a conflict of duties the more important would have precedence. In 7:1–13 we see to what this casuistry led. How was the greatness of a commandment to be determined? Of what kind (ποία) must it be to be ranked as great (Matthew) or as first of all (Mark)?

One method was to judge by the severity of the penalty attached. Thus some teachers magnified the commandments about the sacrifices, others the Sabbath laws, others the law and regulations about circumcision. What would Jesus say? But to the Pharisees the chief point was the fact that the Sadducees rejected all the Pharisaic commandments that were not plainly written in the law, all those that were only the tradition of the fathers. This was one form of Sadducaic skepticism. Josephus, Antiquities, 13, 10, 6; 18, 1, 4.

Would Jesus side with the Sadducees?

Mark 12:29

29 Jesus answered: First is, Be hearing, Israel! The Lord, thy God, is one Lord. And thou shalt love the Lord, thy God, out of thy whole heart and out of thy whole soul and out of thy whole mind and out of thy whole strength. A second this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Greater than these no other precept is.

Matthew shortens by omitting the preamble. Jesus administers no rebuke even in the tone of his answer. He also answers straight to the point and by making Deut. 6:4, 5 his answer shows this lawyer that the answer to his question has long ago been recorded in the Scriptures. The quotation agrees with the Hebrew and the LXX except that Mark has four ἐκ phrases, one with “mind” in the third place, and thus retains both the Hebrew “heart” and the LXX’s “mind.”

Without an introductory word Jesus simply recites from Deuteronomy. “Hear, Israel!” sounds an impressive call. The present imperative implies continuous hearing, and in this connection “hear” signifies a hearing that heeds. Right here faith is required which Rom. 10 tells us comes by hearing. God uses the religious honor-name “Israel,” which is already a call to live up to that name as true believers such as Jacob was. That old name “Israel” is like our name when we love to call ourselves and to be called “Christians.” What Moses bids Israel to hear is not something new and strange but the very thing that made Israel “Israel.” The announcement is in the nature of a reminder. Faith needs such repetitions.

What Israel is to hear is not an abstract proposition regarding the oneness of God. The very name used for God is personal: “The Lord, our God.” Κύριος is Yahweh, the unchanging covenant Lord; and Elohenu is ὁΘεὸςἡμῶν, the God of power who employs all his power in behalf of Israel (“our”). This name is the sum and substance of the gospel. In Yahweh we have the covenant of grace, and in Elohenu with its possessive “our” we have another expression of grace, the Omnipotent in association with Israel as his own people. “Is one Lord” (Κύριος, the predicate, again Yahweh) most decidedly declares the oneness of God: he is the only one, the Absolute, the one absolute Lord God. And all Judaism and all Christianity have found this Oneness declared here over against all polytheism or any duality of gods. Yet this Oneness in no way conflicts with the Trinity of God since it is the Oneness of being and not of person. The one God has revealed himself as three persons.

Yet Moses does not assert simple Oneness of God. As he makes the subject highly personal, so he does the predicate. He does not say “is one” but “is one Lord,” i.e., one Yahweh. Each of the pagan gods is “one,” too; it would be saying mighty little to assert that Israel’s God is also one. That might even bear the false implication that he was the one for this nation as other nations also have, each of them, one special god. Moses writes “is one Lord,” one Yahweh, which cannot be said of any other god. While each of all these other gods may be one, none of them is Yahweh, is able to make and to keep an eternal covenant of salvation; for they are all nonentities, dead figures, nonliving idols. Israel’s God is the one Yahweh, and there is this one alone in all the universe.

Thus Moses puts the gospel first for his people and then adds the law. This gospel supplies the supreme motive and power for the keeping of the Great Commandment of the law. Believing as Israel does in such a God and Lord, how can it help but obey him in love? Living in his covenant, rejoicing in its promises and hopes, how can Israel be disobedient to this Lord God? Some commentators overlook this gospel in the preamble and thus weaken the answer Jesus gave to the scribe.

Mark 12:30

30 Note ἀγαπᾶν in “thou shalt love the Lord, thy God.” This expresses the love of intelligence and purpose and is thus far above φιλεῖν, the love of mere liking or affection. It would be impossible to substitute φιλεῖν for ἀγαπᾶν in this commandment. The latter implies that we know the true God in all his greatness and grace, and that we accordingly turn to him with all our being. It would be impossible to apply to φιλεῖν the deep phrases “out of thy whole heart,” etc.; but ἀγαπᾶν really involves these phrases. The future tense ἀγαπήσεις is used in legal phrasing as a substitute for the imperative (R. 330), and the future is volitive (R. 943) and also expresses the lawgiver’s will. The four following phrases are not condensed: “out of thy whole heart, soul, mind, and strength,” but are spread out so as to put equal emphasis on each one.

Yet the heart is first, the soul next, then the mind and the strength last. On this psychological order read Delitzsch, Biblische Psychologie, 248, etc.

The Biblical conception of the leb, καρδία, “heart,” makes it the very center of our being and personality; in it dwells also ψυχή, “the life,” or “soul”; in it functions the διάνοια, “the mind” or power to think; and from them all results the ἰσχύς or “strength,” that which one possesses whether he puts it forth or not. The nephesh or ψυχή is the life that animates the body, the consciousness of which is in the “heart”; and the διάνοια is the reason together with all its functions, namely its thoughts, ideas, convictions, according to which the heart and the personality act. Since this is God’s own commandment that was uttered by his own mouth, we have here man’s psychology as this is conceived by man’s own Creator who certainly knows man better than man can know himself.

Matthew translates the Hebrew phrases with ἐν: thou shalt love “in thy whole heart,” etc.; Mark follows the LXX by translating ἐκ, “out of thy heart,” etc. While “in” and “out of” seem to be almost opposites they here express the same idea with only a formal difference. “In” denotes sphere, “out of” denotes source. The love to the Lord, our God, is to fill the sphere of the whole heart, etc.; and, surely, if it does that it will come out of the whole heart as its source. The same is true with regard to the other ἐκ-ἐν phrases. In all four of them the adjective “whole” is stressed, its very repetition hammers it in. Not even the smallest corner is to be closed against him and opened to another.

Do we ask why? Because none other and nothing other can be placed beside God; no one and nothing bear the relation to us that the Lord, our God, does. For us to give a part of our heart, etc., to someone or something else would be pretending that someone or something really does stand toward us as God does, which would be a monstrous lie.

Mark 12:31

31“A second this” means that a second commandment must be named which is of the same supreme quality as the first. It is the one in which the long list recorded in Lev. 19 culminates, the 18th verse: “Thou wilt love thy neighbor as thyself.” It is in quality like the one about God. The love is here again expressed by ἀγαπᾶν; and since this love is from man to man, its extent and degree are easily expressed: “as thyself.” Every man naturally loves himself, and all he needs to do is to measure his love for his neighbor by that love for himself. To the degree that the latter falls short of the former his self-love is selfishness; and there is no danger that his love for his neighbor will ever exceed his love for himself. This commandment requires that the two loves should balance exactly. Ὁπλησίον (the adverb substantivized) is one who is near us, i.e., one with whom we come in contact, no matter who he may be. It is idle to demand love for one of whose existence we know nothing.

This love for our neighbor could not be expressed by φιλεῖν for the simple reason that liking would not be enough, and that we could not possibly like everyone with whom we come in contact. Take some vicious individual or some filthy person—can you embrace and kiss him and take him into your home? But you can, indeed, love him (ἀγαπᾶν) with the intelligence that sees and comprehends what is wrong with him and with the noble and true purpose of ridding him of what is wrong with him. This love will ever make the true interests of its neighbor its own. The point in quoting this commandment in addition to the other is not that love to God includes love to our neighbor, which is true enough, but that the quality and the high character of both commandments are alike. This, of course, leaves their natural order, the one about God remains first and the other about man second, for God is infinitely above man.

Mark omits what Matthew preserves: “In these two commandments the whole law hangs and the prophets,” i.e., both law and gospel (Torah, Pentateuch, and the prophetic books). Yet Mark preserves what Matthew omits: “Greater than these no other precept is.” Compare Matt. 22:36, where the question is asked regarding the “great” commandment. If there is none “greater,” then these two form “the great commandment.” If none other is “greater” than these two combined as “the first commandment” (v. 28), none could be placed ahead of them. There are many other commandments as is here implied. When they are compared with this commandment on love they all recede. But they really recede because they are all embraced in this great commandment, than which none is greater.

Mark 12:32

32 And the scribe said to him, Excellently, Teacher, didst thou say of a truth that he is one, and there is not another except he; and to love him from the whole heart and from the whole understanding and from the whole strength and to love the neighbor as oneself is much more than all the whole burnt offering and the slaughter sacrifices.

The answer Jesus gives to the scribe is so complete, so rich and satisfying, so illuminating in every way that the scribe himself said so in his own way. Καλῶς is defined by ἐπʼ ἀληθείας; Jesus had answered so excellently because he had answered “on the basis (ἐπί) of truth.” And the scribe restates what Jesus had quoted by putting it into his own words. First that God is “one,” one in the absolute sense, the only existing God, “and there is not another except he” (πλήν being a preposition, R. 1187). This, too, states the fact exactly.

Mark 12:33

33 Next the two commandments. These are restated quite exactly except that in the place of soul and mind the scribe uses “understanding,” σύνεσις, that highest function of the ψυχή and διάνοια. The change is only formal. The two substantivized infinitives τὸἀγαπᾶν are present tenses and thus denote linear action, R. 1081: “this thing of loving right along.” When the scribe says that such love to God and to one’s neighbor “is much more than all whole burnt offering and the slaughter sacrifices” he indicates which commandments he had been inclined hitherto to rank as first, namely those regarding sacrifices. Ὁλοκαύτωμα is the burnt offering that was wholly consumed on the altar whereas θυσία is the slaughter sacrifice only certain parts of which were burnt on the altar. The two terms together stand for all the altar offerings. The scribe yields to Jesus when he says that the commandment of love “is much more” than all these great sacrifices, and this yielding is wholehearted and genuine. One can almost feel the man’s gratitude.

Mark 12:34

34 And Jesus, when he saw that he answered intelligently, said to him, Not far art thou from the kingdom of God. And no one any longer dared to inquire of him.

It is Mark who rounds out the story by giving us the personal side of this scribe. Jesus noted the fact that he had answered “intelligently,” νουνεχῶς (an adverb derived from νοῦν plus ἔχω), really having his mind on what Jesus had said. The idea is that he in all sincerity grasped what Jesus had told him. Αὐτόν is attracted into the accusative case by ἰδών from the nominative subject of ἀπεκρίθη. When Jesus assures this scribe that he is not far from the kingdom of God (see on 1:15) he is really urging him to take the next step and to enter this kingdom with its divine rule of grace. “Not far from” means “quite near.” This man was so near to the kingdom because he realized that God required the love that is described in Deuteronomy. If he now went on and realized further that he had not loved God and his neighbor in this perfect way he would come to recognize his sinfulness and bow in contrition before God. And he would then also understand that the gospel in the words “the Lord, thy God,” meant that God’s rule of love and grace would cleanse him from his sins. To comprehend this would be faith and thus actual entrance into the kingdom.

At this point Mark inserts the statement that no one dared to make any further inquiries of Jesus. Matthew places this statement after the next pericope in which Jesus asked the Pharisees about the Messiah. Various parties had heretofore confronted Jesus with inquiries, and he had shut up those who came to him with evil intent and had almost won the one man whose intent was honest. The reference is to the former, to those who wished to hurt Jesus. It dawned on them that their shrewdness and cunning were all in vain. Jesus stood as the victor, they had experienced nothing but defeat and could reap only further defeat.

As for the well-intentioned, they had the teaching of Jesus, which he dispensed freely at all times. This occurred on Tuesday, probably in the afternoon. As far as the records show, Jesus did not come back to the Temple on Wednesday or on Thursday.

Mark 12:35

35 And Jesus, answering, went on to say while teaching in the Temple: How do the scribes say that the Christ is a son of David? David himself said in the Holy Spirit:

The Lord said to my Lord,

Be sitting on my right

Until I place thine enemies as a footstool of thy feet.

David himself declares him Lord; and whence is he his son? And the great multitude were hearing him gladly.

Matthew tells us that Jesus had the Pharisees before him, who had gathered to hear how their scribe (v. 28) would fare. Around them crowd the pilgrims who are listening eagerly. All that Mark indicates of this situation is included in ἀποκριθείς, “answering,” Jesus proceeded to say. His question was a rejoinder to these Pharisees. Mark wants us to view what Jesus says as being part of his teaching in the Temple. It is certainly a most important part.

Interpreters have various views as to why Jesus asks this question about the Messiah. The ancient fathers saw that Jesus renews the supreme question which he had addressed to his own band of disciples a few weeks before, 8:29. Peter had given the correct answer. Until Sunday of this week Jesus had avoided the name “Messiah” because of its political and nationalistic implications for his own person. Now the time has arrived to disregard all such implications. Jesus had on Palm Sunday entered Jerusalem and the Temple as David’s son, Israel’s King, the Messiah.

The pilgrim multitudes had shouted his great titles, the boys marching up and down in the Temple courts had echoed those shouts. As the Messiah Jesus now asks the Pharisees this question, and they know that it is no academic or theoretical inquiry but the supreme question concerning his own person.

Mark gives a summary account when he at once has Jesus ask: “How do the scribes say that the Christ is David’s son?” The point to be made is that the question is made objective concerning “the scribes” who were also Pharisees. They were the ones who taught regularly that the Messiah would be a son of King David, a descendant of David’s royal line. Every child among the Jews knew this fact. The trouble was that the scribes taught this and nothing more. It is to this point that Jesus now addresses himself.

When modernists teach this Davidic descent as being nothing but the subjective “normal belief of his (Jesus’) day” and admit only that the Messiah “might be descended from David” and intimate that he might also be descended from some other ancestor they contradict all that both Testaments declare about the human ancestry of the promised Messiah. As far as Jesus is concerned, his legal sonship from David’s line is established by Matthew’s genealogical table in chapter one; his natural sonship from David’s line is established equally by Luke’s table, 3:23, etc. His whole family connection was fully known (6:3). No more deadly weapon against the Messiahship of Jesus could have been found than the proof that he was not of David’s line; but his bitterest enemies never ventured to cast even the least doubt upon his human descent from David.

On Χριστός see 1:1. Luther finds a natural connection between the question as to what makes a commandment first in the law (v. 28) with the answer that Jesus gave (v. 29–31) and the great question that he himself now asks and also answers from Ps. 110. This connection has been denied and is yet altogether obvious. Why should the covenant God of Israel, Yahweh Elohenu, ask his people to love him as he did if that love could never be realized in their hearts because of their sin and doom under sin? His very covenant name points to the covenant promise of the Messiah, in and through whose grace Israel would, indeed, come to love the Lord, its God, with the whole heart, soul, mind, and strength (Jer. 31:33, 34). The supreme commandment and the Messiah, David’s son and David’s Lord, will ever belong together.

The object of Jesus’ question is one and only one: to add to the other revelations that he has made of his deity this revelation from David’s psalm, which is so clear and complete that every Jew who believed the Scriptures must at once see and accept it. The purpose of Jesus is to win even these Pharisees to faith—remember the scribe who was not far from the kingdom (v. 34). The motive of Jesus is the pure and mighty love of the two great commandments which is repeated by his own lips.

Mark 12:36

36 The scribes, who were learned in the law (see 7:1), were perfectly right as far as they went but were perfectly wrong unless they went much farther, for David had a large number of descendants. How was the one to be distinguished who would be the Messiah? If God had revealed no more concerning the Messiah than that he would be a son of David he would have left his people quite in the dark. Davidic descent was only one mark. What was the other, the one that would make one of David’s sons stand out above the others, above even a Solomon and a Hezekiah, as being beyond doubt the promised Messiah? Surely, the Scriptures would say. To help these Jews and these bystanders to find this answer from the Scriptures Jesus draws their attention to “what David himself said” in the famous psalm concerning this one son of his.

The entire presentation assumes as being self-evident and unquestioned the fact that the Messiah would be David’s son, in fact, rests on this assumption as a fact. Moreover, this presentation and what it implies would be senseless unless two further features are true: first, that David wrote Psalms 110 and no one else; secondly, that Yahweh actually did call this one son of David nothing less than David’s ’Adonai (Lord). The Jewish interpretation of this psalm has always been Messianic in spite of the New Testament and the Christian application to Jesus, whom the synagogues reject as being the Messiah.

Over against the critics who on subjective grounds deny that this psalm was composed by David we put the word of Jesus in this passage; that of Luke and Peter in Acts 2:34, 35; that of Paul in 1 Cor. 15:25 plus that of Hebrews 1:13 and 10:13. Jesus says that David wrote this psalm ἐντῷΠνεύματιτῷἉγίῳ, “in connection with the Holy Spirit,” under this Spirit’s influence, which, if it means anything, means by divine inspiration. If all this is denied, the result is most disastrous. If David never wrote this psalm, if David never heard Yahweh call this one son of his his ’Adonai, if the Pharisees and all Judaism were mistaken on this point, and if Jesus as a child of his supposedly uncritical times was equally mistaken: then we have the sad spectacle of the great Jesus by a mistake proving to Jews who were caught in the same mistake what the mistakes of both disprove instead of prove. But if only the scribes and the Jews were mistaken regarding the authorship of this psalm, if Jesus knew better, then Jesus used the ignorance of the Jews for his purpose, and then he sinks to the level of a tricky modern lawyer who capitalizes on the ignorance of his opponent in court. In either case Jesus proves his deity by a false proof, once ignorantly, the other time consciously.

In other words, he proves his deity by disproving it. A mistaken Jesus or a tricky Jesus is not even the model for us which the critics would make him.

But even when the authorship of this psalm is attributed to David, we are not through. For in this psalm David most clearly distinguishes between himself and the far greater person of the Messiah, his future son and yet his ’Adonai or almighty Lord. We are told that David never thus distinguishes the type from the antitype; both are said to flow together for David. The answer is that in this psalm David does not operate with type (himself) and antitype (the Messiah). Even if this were his conception, and if he here alone distinguishes between the two, no law of God or man exists that a thing must be done more than once before it can be done at all. We are born only once, die only once, and no man denies either because he cannot point to repetitions. But the thesis is unwarranted that only in this psalm David clearly distinguishes between himself and the Messiah; he does it in 2 Sam. 23:1–7; again in Ps. 2:7, 12; and in Ps. 22 he goes so far beyond what happened to him that here, too, the Messiah stands out as being distinct from David.

“The Lord said” is more expressive in the Hebrew ne’um Yahweh, “communication of Jehovah,” Eingerauntes, something secretly whispered into the ear, the communication of a mystery. This expression is at times placed in the middle of a divine communication like the Latin inquit or at the end, but repeatedly also at the head as it is done in this psalm. The recipient of the communication is at times added as is done here: “to my Lord,” ’Adonai. The fact that this is David’s future son is understood by all concerned, is here placed beyond question by Jesus himself, and is accepted by both Jewish and Christian exegesis. Yet David, who as king had only Yahweh above him, calls this his own son “my Lord,” and the kind of ’Adon or “Lord” he has in mind is made clear by the description of him in this psalm: one who sits at Yahweh’s right hand, one whose enemies are made his footstool, one who has the rod of strength out of Zion; and so on throughout the psalm. No wonder David called this son of his “my Lord.” This is the Messiah, the God-man, and thus even King David’s “Lord.”

Note that Yahweh is distinct from ’Adon although the Greek has to use Κύριος for both like the English which has Lord for both. This is a clear revelation of the persons of the Godhead in the Old Testament. No wonder the Baptist could freely mention all three, and no Jew ever objected when he heard mention of the Father, the Son of God, and the Spirit of God (“Holy Spirit” right here). His sole objection was that Jesus, the lowly man of Nazareth, called himself the Son, and that men received him as such. David was a prophet and by the illumination and inspiration “in the Holy Spirit” (the article repeated, see its force in R. 776) wrote as he did.

Divine exaltation is here predicated of David’s son, the Messiah: “Be sitting (present imperative, durative) at my right (ἐκ, the right in the Greek idiom, the left, too, always being designated from the person).” The Hebrew imperative sheb limini has become a Messianic title: “Sheblimini.” Yahweh’s right or right hand (the Greek idiom has the plural, “the right” being viewed as consisting of parts) is his divine power and majesty, it is therefore also called “the right hand of power.” Compare all the passages on God’s right hand. To be sitting at Yahweh’s right is to exercise this power and majesty to the fullest extent. This invitation to sit thus is the divine exaltation of Christ’s human nature. For as the Son begotten from eternity he is co-equal with the Father and together with the Father and the Spirit exercises all power and majesty.

When the Son assumed our human nature he communicated all his divine attributes to that nature. Just as a king who marries a humble maiden by virtue of the marriage makes her queen so that she shares in all his royal prerogatives, so the Son did when he wedded our human nature. But to accomplish the redemptive work it was necessary that the human nature pass through a state of humiliation while he was here on earth. So the human nature had the divine attributes bestowed upon it, but ordinarily, except in working miracles, it did not use these attributes, Phil. 2:6, etc. Then the glorious exaltation followed: Christ sat at his Father’s right hand in his human nature.

The astounding clause now follows: “until I place thy enemies as a footstool of thy feet.” Yahweh himself will make a footstool of all the Messiah’s enemies; “put … as thy footstool” is the Hebrew and the LXX. These are ἐχθροί, personal enemies who, wholly unlike David, will not have this man to reign over them. Jesus faces some of these very enemies as he utters these mighty assurances of Yahweh through David concerning himself. These words must have burned into the souls of these Pharisees, but Yahweh’s terrible threat as it came from the lips of the despised Jesus only enraged them. But the object of Jesus lay, not in this threat, but in the revelation of the divine nature of his person, whom David himself called “my Lord” and exalted as very God in the psalm.

We need hardly trouble about the statement which makes the Father active and not the Son. We have long known that the opera ad extra sunt indivisa aut communa; all the persons of the Godhead share in all of them, and the Father works in and through the Son and the Spirit, and vice versa. In Ps. 2:9 the Messiah-King smites with a rod of iron and dashes his enemies in pieces like a potter’s vessel. That is the act of the Son at his Father’s right. God laughs at the raging of the kings on the earth and at the violent hosts of men and devils who assail his Son’s kingdom.

These expressions are anthropomorphitic such as making a footstool of enemies, Josh. 10:24. So conquering kings showed their triumph by placing a foot upon some conquered king. But the figure is vastly magnified here: all the Messiah’s enemies shall be his footstool. And “footstool” matches the figure of the exalted Messiah’s “sitting” on the throne with the Father. “Temporal history shall end with the triumph of good over evil, but not with the annihilation of evil but with its subjugation. To this it will come when absolute omnipotence for all shows its effectiveness through the exalted Christ.” On ‘ad, ἕως, “until,” see the author’s commentary on 1 Cor. 15:28.

Mark 12:37

37 Jesus repeats: “David himself declares (λέγει) him Lord.” Will these Pharisees dare to contradict David? And now the question that is so deadly for these blind and perverse Pharisees: “And whence is he his son?” “Whence” is quite in place, for it asks for the source from which the Pharisees could deduce this astounding statement that one who is David’s Lord and God could at the same time be his own son. A remarkable point is that Jesus does not turn the question around and ask: “Since he is David’s son, as we all know, how can he at the same time be David’s Lord?” But no, Jesus puts it the other way: “From what can you deduce that so mighty a person is David’s son?”

Nor should we generalize: a man’s son his lord. We should stay with David, Israel’s mightiest king who lived and died while having no man above him. And yet this great David makes this one own son of his his Lord. Rationalism says: “He is not David’s son at all—that is what Jesus means.” But the Pharisees might have stoned such rationalists, for all Scripture supports the fact of the Messiah’s descent from David. The question of Jesus as put in the form he used throws the Pharisees against this stone wall: the Messiah is David’s son!

The terrible error of the Pharisees is here exposed. Their conception of the Messiah was that he was David’s son and only David’s son—a mere human Messiah, however great and mighty he was in his human power and glory. His deity was a closed book to their blind Scripture reading. They dared not say that he was not to be David’s son—they knew that he would be. They dared not deny David’s inspired word that the Messiah would at the same time be David’s Lord and thus very God. They were thus caught between the upper and the nether millstone. What the Pharisees would not do was to admit also the Messiah’s deity.

While the Pharisees must have raged inwardly at what Jesus thus presented to them, Mark reports that the great multitude of the festival pilgrims in the spacious Temple courts continued to hear (ἤκουεν, imperfect) him gladly. The mastery of Jesus in all that he said was perfect, and these common people could not help but listen with eagerness.

Mark 12:38

38 And in his teaching he was saying, Beware of the scribes who want to walk in flowing robes, and salutations in the market places, and the first seats in the synagogues, and the first reclining-places at the feasts. They devouring the houses of the widows and for pretense praying long, these shall receive the more abundant judgment.

Mark indicates plainly that this is a part of what Jesus was teaching on Tuesday afternoon after he had answered the inquiries made of him and had himself made one; a fuller account appears in Matt. 23:1, etc. Mark considered a brief statement enough for his Gentile Christian readers who were far removed from the Pharisees and the scribes. Jesus warns against their pride, their avarice, and, above all, their hypocrisy. Βλέπετεἀπό, as it does in 8:15, means “beware of.” It is noteworthy that Jesus warns, not merely against conduct and practices, but against the persons who are given to such conduct and practices. Association with such persons is dangerous, hence βλέπετεἀπό, literally, “be looking away from them,” turn your backs on them, leave them.

An attributive participle, τῶνθελόντων, indicates the reason for this injunction. These scribes, who were professional interpreters of the Torah (Old Testament), constantly abuse that Torah. First, in their ungodly pride. Their will and desire (θέλω) is to parade “in flowing garments”; the στολή is the Staatskleid, the dress for state occasions. They loved to appear as distinguished men and to attract attention and respect as such. The construction then becomes heterogeneous (R. 1199); it seems to be a sudden change to pass from the infinitive περιπατεῖν to the following accusatives, but these are only further objects of θελόντων: “who want … greetings,” etc.

While they were parading in grand robes through the market places, where many people congregated, these Pharisaic scribes loved to attract attention by being saluted on every hand. What an honor to ordinary mortals to have the privilege of greeting such distinguished men!

Mark 12:39

39 They had the same desire also in the synagogues and at δεῖπνα or “feasts.” In the synagogues they wanted as their proper due the front seats beside the synagogue rulers, where everybody could see their prominence; they also counted on being called upon to offer their wisdom during the services. At a deipnon, an evening meal that was made festive by their being invited as guests, they considered it only proper that the most prominent reclining-places on the divans or couches should be accorded to them. The head place on each couch was at the extreme left; this was considered foremost because the person occupying it could overlook the entire table without throwing back his head or looking around. All these honors were no doubt abundantly accorded to them.

Mark 12:40

40 How worthy they were of these honors is now revealed in a flash. The substantivized participles are in the nominative. We may construe in two ways: either as the grammars do, as a nominative absolute (R. 1130) which is not changed to match the preceding genitive τῶνθελόντων; or, as seems much simpler, by beginning a new sentence in which οὗτοι picks up the two preceding nominative participles.

It must have been a matter of common knowledge that these holy scribes abused their reputation by taking advantage of widows, by helping them, as administrators, to preserve their estates and using this position to “devour their houses,” to loot these estates in more or less legal ways. The charge must have come like a thunderclap to any scribes who were present at the time. The pilgrims must have opened their eyes and their ears wide to hear their scribes denounced so openly. In the Old Testament to rob widows and orphans had always been branded as one of the most despicable crimes. To cover up this baseness these scribes “for a pretense go on praying long,” “for a pretense” implying public praying for men to see as in Matt. 6:5. These prayers are a mere pretense without sincerity toward God and are offered only to impress men.

Seeing these long periods of prayer, men would think it impossible that these scribes ever touched a widow’s penny. This terrible scoring of long praying in public has had its effect on the Lutheran Church where long public prayers are almost altogether unknown.

Οὗτοι, in the common Greek fashion, emphatically takes up what the two participles state: “these,” these so described, they shall receive the more abundant judgment. Κρῖμα is here the sentence and its execution. The sentence and the penalty shall be more severe for these hypocrites than for others who, though they were sinners, practiced no such hypocrisy. As there are degrees of glory in heaven, so there are degrees of torture in hell, Luke 12:48. As scribes these men knew the Lord’s will and could know it far better than other men; this, too, aggravated their penalty.

Mark 12:41

41 And having sat down over against the treasury chest, he was beholding how the multitude was throwing coin into the treasury chest, and many rich were throwing much.

“What a man!” exclaims Stier. Directly after an address like the one just uttered he calmly sits down to note what a poor, lone widow does. He is never one-sided, never carried away by his emotions, always absolutely master of himself. As he sat and watched over against the treasury chest in the Temple court, so he now looks down on every giver and every gift offered in his church, and his estimates are just as true as they were in the Temple. While τὸγαζοφυλάκιον (Luke has the plural) may mean “the treasure chamber,” the context requires that we think of one of the thirteen trumpet-shaped metal receptacles (shapharoth), each marked by a letter of the Hebrew alphabet, which were placed in the court of the women to receive the gifts of the worshippers for the benefit of the Temple and for the Temple tax. Near them and over against one of them Jesus sat down, possibly on the steps that led from the court of the women to that of the men.

The imperfect ἐθεώρει describes that Jesus continued for some time to behold how the pilgrims (these are meant by ὁὄχλος) went on casting money into the treasury chest nearest to him. The verb is select: Jesus was observing closely. The Greek retains the present tense βάλλει in the indirect discourse after the imperfect ἐθεώρει whereas the English changes to the past tense “was throwing.”

The tenses are of special interest, R. 838: “The general scene is presented by the descriptive durative imperfect ἐθεώρει and the durative present βάλλει. It is visualized by πολλοί … ἔβαλλον. But the figure of the widow woman is singled out by the aorist ἔβαλεν. The closing reference by Jesus to the rest is by the constative aorist πάντεςἔβαλον. Note also the precise distinction between εἶχεν and ἔβαλεν at the end. Where the aorist and the imperfect occur side by side, it is to be assumed that the change is made on purpose and the difference in idea to be sought.

In juxtaposition the aorist lifts the curtain, and the imperfect continues the play.” Attention is especially drawn to “many rich” as they were throwing in much (ἔβαλλον, the iterative imperfect). It is said that the city was in a flourishing condition at this time. How these gifts of the rich were viewed by Jesus is stated presently. In passing we may note that today the rich ought also, as far as quantity is concerned, throw in much. Many men of wealth give far too little in proportion to those of small means. But we shall see that it is the quality of the gifts that is the real essential.

The χαλκός, copper or brass, was coined money; the Jews had no paper money.

Mark 12:42

42 And a poor widow having come, threw in two lepta, which is a quadrans.

“A poor widow” is correct since μία is used as the indefinite article, R. 674. She is placed over against the many rich. The participle ἐλθοῦσα draws attention to her approach. Jesus beheld her as she drew near, not only as she threw in her gift. He marks out every one of us as we make ready to give; he beholds our thoughts as they crystallize into the resolution to make our offering. This woman was “poor”; her appearance, no doubt, indicated that fact, and she was poor indeed as we shall see.

But how did Jesus know that she was “a widow”? We may likewise ask how he knew that the two lepta were “all her living.” The solution is offered that she was one of Jesus’ disciples, and that he thus knew all about her circumstances. But the text has no hint to this effect. Jesus employed his supernatural knowledge. His all-discerning eyes rested upon her and upon all that transpired here; this is what made his judgment infallible. So every life and every heart lie bare before him.

No other explanation suffices or satisfies. It is well in this connection to remind ourselves of God’s special care for the widow and the orphan. Men often forget or neglect them, but our Savior watches over them.

This widow’s name is nowhere recorded; her gift has lent her a name, and it is a good name in all the ages of the church. Every man’s gifts stamp him with a name; and when the gift is as small as this woman’s was, the name is not always the same, it is sometimes the very opposite of the one this widow bears. The aorist ἔβαλεν simply states the fact. There is no thought of display or expectation of praise. Ordinary eyes would certainly never have noted anything remarkable in this woman or her gift.

One writer tells us that there were always bystanders at these treasure chests who noted the large contributions and murmured praises when these were cast in. Such people would surely have overlooked this humble woman and her tiny gift, for all she had was two lepta. Since we have no English equivalents we leave the denominations untranslated. The lepton, so called because of its smallness, is one eighth of an as (assarion), two lepta thus make a quadrans or quarter as (also in Matt. 5:26), about the fourth of a cent in value, of which Bengel says well that she might have retained one. “Mite” and “farthing” are older English, a mite being a twenty-fourth of a penny, and a farthing one-fourth of a penny. These English terms are thus wrong equivalents.

There are those who to this day judge the widow’s act according to their shallow worldly wisdom by saying that she should have kept her money for her own support or should have kept at least half of it, or that the gift was so insignificantly small as far as the Temple was concerned that it amounted to practically nothing. What was it that the thief Judas had to object to in Mary’s offering to Jesus in Bethany just the Saturday night before this Tuesday?

Worldly wisdom always makes big fools of us. In the case of this widow it sees neither the faith and trust that filled this woman’s heart nor the act of true worship she performed. All these are more precious in Jesus’ eyes than the largest gift bestowed by the Jews in Jerusalem on that day. Poverty may be made a great curse as well as a great blessing. It becomes a curse when it fills the heart with anxious care and worry, with murmuring and complaint, or leads to unbelief and dishonesty. It becomes a blessing when it compels the poor man to cast himself upon God who has promised to care for his children.

Mark 12:43

43 And having called unto him his disciples, he said to them, Amen, I say to you that this poor widow threw in more than all those throwing into the treasury chest. For they all threw in of what is over and above to them, but she of her want cast in all whatever she had, her whole living.

The disciples may have been scattered about in the crowd of pilgrims. Jesus calls them together de magna re (Bengel), for a matter of grave import. Many others very likely also came to listen. The disciples are to hear something that is for their personal benefit, and they are at the same time to learn the principle according to which all gifts in the church are to be estimated; this will be valuable for their own future official work. Remember the willing and generous offerings of the first congregation in Jerusalem. It is generally assumed that the widow went her way; but, like others, she may have wondered why Jesus summoned his disciples and may thus have heard what Jesus said about her gift. Jesus frequently uttered words of commendation in the hearing of those whom he wished to praise.

Jesus begins with the formula that is explained in 3:28: “Verily,” this is a true judgment; “I say to you,” I who alone am able to render such a judgment in this case. The two aorists place the two acts in sharp contrast: “she threw in—they all threw in.” The emphasis is on πλεῖον. The gifts of all the rich are summed up, and the poor widow’s gift is said to be “more” than this sum. This goes far beyond comparing her gift with that of one rich giver, say the one who had made the largest gift. On the very face of this statement there lies the fact that Jesus is not comparing the sums involved. It is the quality of the gift that makes it “more” or less in the eyes of Jesus.

Mark 12:44

44 Jesus gives a reason for setting this value on the poor widow’s gift. “They all” includes the rich givers who had cast in so much; there might have been many more such givers, for however numerous those were who gave much, the quantity of their gifts would never have raised the quality in Jesus’ eyes. By giving as these men gave it was impossible to reach the value of the poor widow’s gift. All the rich cast in ἐκτοῦπερισσεύοντοςαὐτοῖς, “from what is over and above to them,” from what they could thus give without the least effort. But this woman gave ἐκτῆςὑστερήσεωςαὐτῆς, “from her want or lack,” from what was insufficient even for her own support.

If Jesus had stopped here, the great value of the widow’s gift would already have been apparent: the rich of what they did not need—she of what was even less than her need. But the case is still more in her favor: she cast in “all whatever she had, her whole living,” all that she had to live on. That was a sacrifice indeed! But we should not overlook what this statement implies concerning this widow’s gift. To give her last cent as she did means that by this act she placed herself completely into the keeping of God who could and would provide for her far better and more surely than any two lepta or a million times any number of lepta could. The words spoken to another unnamed woman may be applied here: “O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt!” Matt. 15:28.

Did this widow starve? I think not. The great painter Tissot depicts this widow with a little child on her arms. It makes the image of the woman more poignant. Can you imagine yourself in her place without the fear of starving? Few can.

Many who live in abundance decline to give or give too little because they fear that they will not have enough for the future. They give from lack of faith, and that robs their giving of its true value. The widow’s gift, though copper, was entirely gold in the eyes of the Lord. How do your gifts appear in his eyes? The widow’s act cannot be reproduced mechanically. Even if you, too, gave all that you have you could not in that way alone match her performance.

Copy her faith, then you will be in her class, and the size of your gifts will, of course, take care of itself.

We may think of this woman as being one of the humble members of the first congregation in Jerusalem and living her unobtrusive life among the first believers. Even in regard to money this widow’s gift has been multiplied endlessly. How many givers’ hearts has she not helped to purify, fill with better faith, and make truly generous in their gifts! When the final computation is made in heaven, the interest which this woman’s gift bore for the kingdom will be far beyond anything that the gifts of others, such as those at the treasure chests, could possibly produce. But this is due to the grace which the Lord added to this woman’s gift by having her story spread on the sacred record. Are your gifts of a kind to which he can add his benediction so that they will in some way at least also aid and inspire others to real faith and to this true fruit of faith?

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage besorgt von Albert Debrunner.

M.-M. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, Illustrated from the Papyri and other Non-Literary Sources, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan.