Down to Earth But Heavenly Minded

What does Mark Chapter 12 mean?

Jesus spends this entire chapter explaining that the Jewish religious and civil leaders are not nearly as wise or honorable as they claim to be. Their lack of understanding about what God values and intends for the world leads them to reject the truth they claim to teach. They turn obedience to God into a method for accruing honor from people.

In the parable of the tenants, Jesus explains how the Jewish leaders have assumed authority and control over the religious and civil systems that God means them to be stewards of. When God sent prophets to bring the Israelites’ loyalties back toward God, the leaders abused and murdered the prophets. God has now sent His Son, and they will do the same to Him. The leaders seem to think that if God has no more representatives, they will be free to rule as they wish. They don’t realize that God’s plan has always been to expand His attentions to the whole world, and if the Jewish leaders won’t be a part of the plan, they will be removed (Mark 12:1–12).

The Pharisees and Herodians give Jesus the chance to expound on this theme when they ask if the Mosaic law permits Jews to pay taxes to Caesar. Jesus disappoints both sects by ignoring the possibility of an autonomous Jewish theocracy and separating the honor due God from that which is due the king. This is especially important to the church as we live as Christ-followers in secular society (Mark 12:13–17).

On the surface, the Pharisees dismiss worldly position for spiritual authority. The Sadducees, who believe there is no resurrection, combine the two. In the context of a logic puzzle about levirate marriages, Jesus reveals that the Sadducees—the sect that produces most of the high priests—don’t understand the nature of God’s relationship to His people. They don’t trust that God has made His people for something bigger than just this world. Without an afterlife, the Sadducees find meaning only in power on earth (Mark 12:18–26).

One scribe of the Pharisees shows that he does understand; at least, he understands the purpose of the Mosaic law. He understands that knowing and loving God and loving people is the basis for all the rules God gave regarding behavior. Unfortunately, he doesn’t yet follow the thread to the conclusion that God also loves him and has sent His Son to save him. Not even the work of love can earn salvation (Mark 12:28–34).

At this point, none of the Jewish religious or civil leaders dare challenge Jesus further. Jesus takes charge of the conversation by pointing out a specific area in which the scribes misunderstand Scripture. For a while, now, scribes have referred to the Messiah as the “son of David.” They miss the part in Psalm 110:1 that reveals the Messiah is also David’s Lord. This section seems like a non-sequitur, but it primes the audience for a more comprehensive criticism of their religious experts (Mark 12:35–37).

Mark next describes how Jesus roundly criticizes how the scribes misunderstand their position. They are supposed to be teaching the people how to honor and worship God so God can bless them. Instead, their entitled demeanor invites the people to honor them, while they cheat the powerless. Where Mark gives a short synopsis of the scribes’ abuses, Matthew 23 goes into much more detail, and finishes with Jesus’ lament of how the leaders in Jerusalem have rejected the prophets and sealed the temple’s doom (Mark 12:38–40).

Mark next shows Jesus highlighting a woman who is the exact opposite of these foolish leaders. Out of honor to God, a widow donates the last of her meager funds. She has no expectation that she will receive any earthly honor; in fact, she may be scorned for giving so little. But Jesus commends her for giving more to God than any of the leaders who have supposedly dedicated their lives to God’s service (Mark 12:41–44).

This chapter marks the last time Jesus is recorded teaching in the temple courtyard and the last public teaching of His ministry. After this, He will teach His disciples on the Mount of Olives (Mark 13), be anointed one last time (Mark 14:3–9), eat the Passover with His disciples (Mark 14:12–25), and face the crucifixion. The Pharisees, Sadducees, Herodians, chief priests, and scribes reject Jesus as they have rejected God’s will. But in the course of ensuring Jesus’ execution, they also provide the means by which God can forgive them and reconcile them to Himself.

Chapter Context
Days before, Jesus has entered Jerusalem, hailed as a hero by the people (Mark 11:1–11). While teaching in the temple courtyard, Jesus shows superior understanding of Scripture over the chief priests, scribes, and elders (Mark 12:27–33), the Pharisees and Herodians (Mark 12:13), the Sadducees (Mark 12:18), and the scribes again (Mark 12:35, 38). Sadly, even in the instance where a scribe does understand Scripture, that is no guarantee he will follow it to its logical conclusion: Jesus (Mark 12:28–34). In contrast, a humble widow exemplifies the faithfulness and piety the leaders lack (Mark 12:41–44). Jesus leaves the temple for the last time to teach the disciples on the Mount of Olives (Mark 13). In Mark 14, He prepares for the crucifixion.

Verse by Verse

Verse 1. And he began to speak to them in parables. “A man planted a vineyard and put a fence around it and dug a pit for the winepress and built a tower, and leased it to tenants and went into another country.

In Matthew’s Gospel, this is the second of three stories comparing attempts to use God for worldly gain against sincerely following God. In the parable of the two sons, Jesus conveys that tax collectors and prostitutes, despite their initial rebellion, choose to follow God more closely than the religious leaders (Matthew 21:28–32). Here, the “tenants,” or religious and civil leaders, assume a higher station than they warrant, and God promises to reward their presumption with destruction (Mark 12:9). In the parable of the wedding feast, the nobles who reject the invitation of the king will be replaced by whatever commoners are willing to come. In all three cases, the religious leaders overestimate their importance to God and, if they do not repent and follow Him, will find themselves deposed.

Jesus’ use of this parable involves an unexpected twist. Scholars relate the parable to Isaiah 5:1–7, as this verse has many of the same details as Isaiah 5:2. In Isaiah, God builds a vineyard, representing Israel, but only wild grapes grow, representing rebellious Israelites. In response, God promises to destroy the vineyard: their exile into Babylon (2 Kings 24:10). It’s possible, at first, that the religious leaders see themselves as the landowner in the parable: the rightful “owner” of the Jewish nation, and the tenants as the Roman occupiers. It isn’t until Jesus mentions the “servants” (Mark 12:2–5), a term used in the Old Testament for prophets (Jeremiah 7:25–26), that the leaders understand what Jesus is saying.

Reading these words two thousand years after the resurrection, the roles in this allegory are clearer. The landowner is God. The tower is God’s protection over Israel, Judaism, and the temple. The tenants are the religious and civil leaders (Matthew 23:31). The trip the landowner takes could be the four hundred years of silence between Malachi and John the Baptist, but it can also mean the entire history from Joshua’s conquest of Canaan until this point.

Assigning a specific identity to the vineyard is harder. Not every single nuance of a parable is meant to have a specific application in the real world. If the vineyard is meant to have a specific meaning, it appears to be the Jewish people, but considering they will be dispersed with the “tenants” during the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, the meaning is probably broader. The valuable farmland is God’s favor, the way of salvation, and the knowledge of how to worship Him. These responsibilities will pass on to the church, which is the “others” of Mark 12:9. At this time, however, the listeners would have no way of knowing this.

Context Summary
Mark 12:1–12 takes place days before the crucifixion, while Jesus is in the temple courtyard, teaching. Chief priests, elders, and scribes—representatives of the Sanhedrin—have demanded to know the source of Jesus’ authority to cleanse the Temple (Mark 11:27–28, 15–19). After exposing their hypocrisy, Jesus tells at least three additional stories that show how God will replace falsely-pious religious leaders with sinners who truly follow Him (Matthew 21:28—22:14). The second of these three stories is recorded here, in Matthew 21:33–46, and in Luke 20:9–19.

Verse 2. When the season came, he sent a servant to the tenants to get from them some of the fruit of the vineyard.

The setting of this parable is easy for the original audience to relate to. Large estates, owned by absentee landlords tended to by tenant farmers, were common in that era. Galilee, full of vineyards, was configured in this way. The landowner would send a servant to collect a portion of the produce as payment for leasing the land.

“Servant” is from the Greek root word doulos, meaning “a slave, bondman, or servant.” “Fruit” is from the Greek root word karpos. It can mean the edible products of a plant, but it also means the result or effect of something, as in the “fruit of the Spirit” (Galatians 5:22–23). Since intact grapes don’t travel well, the story is probably referring to wine made from the grapes.

In the allegory, “servant” stands for prophet, as it does in the Old Testament (Jeremiah 7:25; Daniel 9:6, 10). The “fruit” is the devotion of the people, represented by their sacrifices, worship, and obedience to God. To gather that fruit and direct it toward God is exactly what God sent the prophets to do.

“When the season came” is an interesting phrase given the events in Mark 11. Jesus approaches a fig tree on His way to Jerusalem one morning, hoping for some breakfast. The fig tree is filled with leaves but no fruit because it is not the right season. So Jesus curses it, and by the next morning, it is withered to the roots (Mark 11:12–14, 20–25).

After the curse, but before the tree fully dies, Jesus entered the temple courtyard. Merchants and money-changers had set up booths in the Court of the Gentiles, space originally set aside for Gentiles to worship and pray to God. With the crucifixion looming, the season of God being exclusively for the Jews is coming to an end. The time of the Gentiles is coming. And so, like the fig tree that does not provide fruit when it is needed, the temple and the old covenant Judaic system must be destroyed. As a preview, Jesus tears down the vendors’ tables. In another forty years or so, the Roman army will destroy Jerusalem.

Verse 3. And they took him and beat him and sent him away empty-handed.

In the parable of the tenants, the landowner sends his servants to the vineyard to gather the fruit the tenants owe him. In Jewish history, God sent prophets to the people to gather what the Jews owed God. In return for the blessings God gave the Israelites, He expected worship, sacrifice, obedience, and devotion.

The Jews’ treatment of the prophets showed directly how the people felt about God. The prophets came in God’s name, with His commission and His authority. In response, the prophets were beaten (Jeremiah 20:2–4), thrown into a cistern (Jeremiah 38), and killed (1 Kings 18:4; 2 Chronicles 24:20–22; Jeremiah 26:20–23; Hebrews 11:32–38). The last Old Testament-style prophet is John the Baptist. After a hostile relationship with the Jewish leaders and a public fight with the Tetrarch, John was killed for doing his job: telling the truth and calling people to do what they know is right (Mark 6:14–29).

The prophets’ job was merely to call the people to give God His due. This parallels how the messenger of this parable has come to gather some of the fruit of the vineyard for the owner. A vineyard takes four years to grow, and the owner has been away since he planted the vines. The tenants may think that because the owner is far away, he won’t retaliate for the mistreatment of his servant. Eventually they believe that if they kill all the landowner’s representatives, they can lay claim to the vineyard as legal squatters.

Seeing the parallel to the Old Testament, it’s understandable why removal from the land—exile—was a consequence of Israel’s disobedience.

Verse 4. Again he sent to them another servant, and they struck him on the head and treated him shamefully.

Jesus is using a story to compare the Jewish religious and civil leaders to rebellious farm tenants and the Old Testament prophets to the vineyard owner’s servants. Like many of Israel’s kings, the religious and civil leaders of Jesus’ day forget that God is the true leader of their nation.

Being a prophet was a dangerous job. In the course of their duties, Zechariah was stoned (2 Chronicles 24:20–22) and Uriah was struck by a sword (Jeremiah 26:20–23). Daniel, of course, was thrown into a lions’ den (Daniel 6), and Jonah was commanded to preach repentance to the vile, violent Ninevites (Jonah 1:1–2). When Jesus speaks the words recorded here, John the Baptist has been beheaded, and Jesus is days from the crucifixion. Unlike the servants in the allegory, some prophets did bring the fruit of people’s hearts to their Master, but they payed dearly for it.

“Shamefully” is from the Greek root word atimazō, meaning “to treat contemptuously, to dishonor.” It is also used to describe the treatment the high priest and the Sadducees give the apostles (Acts 5:17–42). The apostles are released after a mock trial, but as they leave, they have an interesting reaction. They praise God that “they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor” for Christ (Acts 5:41).

In the modern day, believers often demand others respect our “rights” as Christians. That’s not a bad thing to do, at all (Acts 22:25–29). But we less frequently stop to praise God for what persecution proves: that we are following Him diligently enough to draw the attention of an evil world. Paul tells Timothy, “Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (2 Timothy 3:12). When life within a godless, secular culture is easy, uncontroversial, and serene, we should at least question how much the world sees God in us.

Verse 5. And he sent another, and him they killed. And so with many others: some they beat, and some they killed.

The treatment of the servants is a direct reference to how the Israelites reacted to God’s prophets. Since the escape from Egypt, God sent many specially-called prophets to convict the Israelites of their rebellion against God (Jeremiah 7:25). The people rarely listened (Jeremiah 7:26; 25:4).

Looking at the Old Testament prophets from a distance, God’s actions almost seem cruel, at least towards the prophets themselves. Why did He send so many messengers to ungrateful people, knowing they would be dishonored, beaten, and killed? In part, because some people did listen (2 Samuel 12:1–15; Ezra 10). In part, because it is God’s nature to continue to reach out to us (Hosea 2:14–20; Jeremiah 3:12–14). Peter says, “The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). God’s constant stream of messengers is His call for us to return to Him.

It would have been easy for the disciples to look smugly at the chief priests, scribes, and elders while Jesus takes them down a notch. Some of the disciples followed John the Baptist before they followed Jesus (John 1:35–45). But the disciples don’t yet realize that they are the heirs of the prophets’ legacy: suffering messengers of God At another point, Jesus tells them, “The one who hears you hears me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Luke 10:16). That rejection manifests in violence. The Bible records the beatings the disciples would endure (Acts 5:40; 16:22; 21:32) as well as the deaths of Stephen and James (Acts 7:54–60; 12:1–2).

We, too, are called to follow in those footsteps. Jesus calls all believers to pick up their cross and follow Him (Mark 8:34). The alternative is to follow the hypocritical religious leaders; they are so afraid of losing their position over the people that they compromise Scripture and reject God’s truth.

Verse 6. He had still one other, a beloved son. Finally he sent him to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’

Jesus’ use of this parable is meant to turn the religious leaders’ arrogance against themselves. At first, they might have thought of themselves as the parable’s landowner. It would have quickly dawned on them that Jesus implies they are actually the abusive tenants, and God’s prophets are the servants. That’s confrontational enough—but this turn in the story would have been outrageous and alarming to the religious leaders. Jesus is saying that He is the son of the landowner: He is the Son of God.

In the Old Testament, “son of God” usually refers to angels (Job 1:6), the Nephilim from Genesis 6:2–4, or the Israelites in general (Exodus 4:22). Jews don’t see it as a specifically Messianic term, although it is used loosely for David and his dynasty (2 Samuel 7:14; Psalm 89:27–28). Apocryphal literature does refer to the Messiah as the son/Son of God, but also uses that title for those who follow God closely. This kind of imagery is standard in Judaism. When the religious leaders call themselves the sons or children of Abraham, Jesus counters that they are not the children of God, but the children of the Devil (John 8:39–44). Their actions, particularly their rejection of Jesus, show who it is they resemble.

As used here, however, the phrase “beloved son” clears away all the historical metaphor. It pushes Jesus’ claims into an area of theology for which the Jews do not yet have a name. Jesus is saying that the God of the universe, who is one, has a singular son. Years later, church leaders will wrestle with the concept of the Trinity, but on this day, Jesus’ audience must be either very confused or very incensed that He presumes to state God has a son.

Verse 7. But those tenants said to one another, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’

Mark 12:1 mentions that the landowner has planted the vineyard. It takes four years before a vineyard can be fruitful; for the tenants, that’s four years of hard work with no contact from the landowner. In Jesus’ time, in Galilee, rich men regularly buy up land and lease it to farmers while they live in another country. The landowners will send servants to collect some of the crops for payment. If the landowner disappears or abandons the property, it is legal for squatters to assume possession.

This explains why the parable’s servants think they can kill the heir and take over the land. They seem to assume that the arrival of the son implies that the original owner has died; the death of the rightful heir would free the land for taking by the servants. Of course, the tenants are gravely mistaken. The owner lives and has the right to ask the civil government to expel the tenants by whatever force is necessary.

At this point in history, about five hundred years after the Jews returned from Babylon and rebuilt the temple and the wall around Jerusalem, the people appear to follow God more closely than ever before. No one sacrifices their children to Molech (Jeremiah 32:35) any more. Baal and Asherah worship are left behind (Judges 2:13; 1 Kings 16:33). The people perform proper sacrifices and hold feasts and generally live lives more in line with the Mosaic law.

Unfortunately, this behavior is mostly hollow ritual and tradition, especially on the part of the religious leadership. The defining characteristic of true reverence for God isn’t diligence in following rituals and laws, but a readiness to repent and accept Jesus as the Messiah, as John the Baptist taught.

Instead of honoring God as the source of every blessing, and recognizing their behavior as a sign of respect for God’s position, the Jewish leadership withholds their hearts from God. In Jesus’ parable, they are the tenants who kill the son. These religious leaders have remade Judaism so they receive the honor and the glory, just as the parable’s tenants seek to receive all the wine.

Verse 8. And they took him and killed him and threw him out of the vineyard.

The Jewish leaders have asked Jesus who gave Him authority to toss over the tables used by the money changers and merchants in the temple courtyard. Jesus responds with a parable that goes much deeper than their original question.

It’s not a question of which earthly authority empowered Jesus. It’s not even about which earthly authority gave the chief priests, scribes, and Jerusalem elders authority to hold their positions. All their authority is granted by God according to His instruction. The priests are to perform their duties according to the Mosaic law. The scribes are to explain what the law means. The elders are to apply the Law to day-to-day situations. But like the second son in Jesus’ prior parable (Matthew 21:28–32), they promise to obey God and then don’t.

Jesus has made the point that He is there to do His Father’s will (John 6:38), up to and including dying on a cross (Mark 14:36). The issue isn’t a matter of who grants the authority given to Jesus and the others but who is obeying that authority. We can’t injure God directly. We can’t physically harm Him or take from His glory and sovereignty. He is all-seeing, all-knowing, and all-powerful. Although we can refuse to acknowledge His majesty, we can’t take away from it. We can injure His representatives. In the Old Testament, those who refused to respect God showed their disrespect by harming God’s emissaries—His prophets. In the New Testament, they kill His Son.

The religious and civil leaders kill Jesus because they don’t want to give up the corrupted version of Judaism which they created: one that gives them power and authority God never intended. They don’t realize that by rejecting God’s authority, they are also rejecting God’s protection. Within forty years of this incident, Jerusalem will be destroyed, Judaism will be in exile, and God will give the job of serving and worshiping Him to others (Mark 12:9).

Verse 9. What will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the tenants and give the vineyard to others.

Jesus is telling a parable filled to the brim with metaphors. He is telling the religious and civil leaders of Jerusalem that they have rebelled against God and beaten and killed His representatives. This refers to the prophets of the past, and will soon include God’s own Son. In response, God will destroy Israel, exile Judaism, and give the spiritual blessings and protection He intended for the Jews to the church.

This is one of those verses that needs to be defined by what it doesn’t say as much as by what it does. Strains of theology teach that either the Christian church has replaced Israel, in God’s affections and plans, or that the Christian church is joined with Israel as God’s chosen people. This “replacement theology” teaches the church is now the recipient of the promises God made to Israel. This is not what this or any other passage of the Bible means to imply. Such thinking leads in many harmful directions, and it deeply misinforms many end-times beliefs.

God works throughout human history in different ways. Each different way corresponds to a specific era or dispensation. From the time of the Mosaic law until the resurrection of Jesus, God worked in the world primarily through Israel. He nurtured, protected, equipped, and blessed the Jews so that when the savior promised in Genesis 3:15 arrived, Israel would be prepared to spread this information to the world.

When Jesus does arrive, Israel refuses its God-given task and kills their Savior (Mark 12:8). God had always planned to use Israel to spread the message of salvation to the Gentiles. He had always planned for the Gentiles to be brought to fellowship with Him (Isaiah 42:6; Luke 2:32). While the learned Jewish leadership rejects God’s plan of salvation, God uses fishermen (Mark 1:16–20) and tax-collectors (Mark 2:13–14) and tent-makers (Acts 18:1–3) instead.

The church has been given the mission of spreading the gospel, but it has not replaced Israel. In the end times, God will restore Israel and the Jews will hold a prominent position in the world and His plan.

Verse 10. Have you not read this Scripture: “‘The stone that the builders rejectedhas become the cornerstone;

Mark 12:10–11 is a direct quote of the Septuagint version of Psalm 118:22–23. Jewish tradition states that the “stone” was rejected for use in building the temple sanctuary but became essential for the porch. It’s unclear if the stone is for the cornerstone of the foundation or the keystone of the arch. Rabbis taught that the stone represented either Abraham, David, or the Messiah, and often interpreted “the builders” to mean the experts of the Mosaic law.

The sanctuary of the temple is the interior portion behind the altar. This includes steps, a vestibule, the nave, and the Holy of Holies. The porch is the main entrance to the temple on the east end. Ezekiel saw a vision in which the glory of the Lord will pass through the East Gate and enter the temple through the porch (Ezekiel 43:1–5). That the stone was rejected from being a part of the sanctuary means the Jewish religious leaders reject Jesus as a significant part of their religion and relationship with God. That same stone becomes a part of the porch, through which all God-followers will be welcomed. God is not stymied by our misinterpretations of His will, whether intentional or by mistake. He will fulfill His plan and when we look back, we will call it “marvelous” (Mark 12:11).

Verse 11. this was the Lord ‘s doing,and it is marvelous in our eyes’?”

This continues a quote from the Septuagint version of Psalm 118:22–23. It describes how the people reacted to God’s providence in taking a stone that was rejected for the construction of the temple sanctuary and making it essential for the temple porch. This is an example of a literal, historical event having symbolic meaning. The “stone,” in Judaism, represents Abraham, David, or the Messiah. Some thought the “builders” represents the scribes who are experts in the law.

This is a key point in how God acts in human history. There was nothing noteworthy about Abraham that earned God’s favor. God chose to bless him as the father of His people because of His good grace. David was a shepherd boy, the youngest of a large family, nowhere near the line of King Saul, when God chose to anoint him as king. Similarly, the Messiah was described as having no majesty or beauty that would automatically attract others to Him (Isaiah 53:2).

It is the same for us. “For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly” (Romans 5:6). There is nothing we can do to earn salvation. It is all a gift of God, possible through Jesus’ sacrifice (Ephesians 2:8–9). Only when we accept that we are powerless can we enter God’s kingdom (Mark 10:15).

Despite all law and tradition, God chooses “what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God [chooses] what is weak in the world to shame the strong” (1 Corinthians 1:27). Despite our initial doubts and skepticism of that plan, if we truly follow Him, we will find His plan “marvelous.”

Verse 12. And they were seeking to arrest him but feared the people, for they perceived that he had told the parable against them. So they left him and went away.

The parable of the tenants is closely related to the metaphoric prophecy in Isaiah 5:1–7. The main difference is that in Isaiah, the vineyard grows only wild grapes, not the domestic grapes the owner had planted. That is, the rebellion against the “landowner” came from the people, themselves. In this parable, Jesus explains that there’s nothing wrong with the grapes, it’s the tenants, or the religious leaders, who are corrupt and rebellious.

These same men refuse to disavow John the Baptist for fear of the people (Mark 11:32). They argue with Jesus over where His authority comes from (Mark 11:27–33). Then they fail to see the irony in the question. The religious leaders believe their authority comes from God, but they are threatened by Jesus and afraid of the people. That fear leads them to partner with Judas so they can arrest Jesus secretly (Mark 14:1–2). Jesus knows His authority is from God, and He is afraid of no one and nothing, not even death.

In the years since Malachi, the position of high priest had become more politicized. In the 2nd century BC, the role went to whomever bribed Antiochus Epiphanes last. After the Maccabean revolt, the high priest was often whoever had assassinated the previous high priest.

Jesus’ point is that it isn’t enough to receive authority from God if you don’t then use that authority to do His will. The priests, scribes, and elders hold God-given positions, but they don’t serve Him. This makes their position very tenuous. If you don’t do the will of your master, he won’t enforce your authority over the people. That means you have to trick, bribe, cajole, or lord over the people in order to maintain your influence. And if you haven’t submitted your will to God, you’re going to be more worried about keeping your influence than pleasing God.

Verse 13. And they sent to him some of the Pharisees and some of the Herodians, to trap him in his talk.

Jesus and the disciples are in the courtyard of the temple. The temple sits near the west edge of the flat-topped Temple Mount, slightly north of center. Around the temple is the Court of the Gentiles, where God-following Gentiles may pray. Along the edges of the Temple Mount are porticoes where teachers can sit out of the sun and teach. The largest, Solomon’s Portico, lines the south edge. Jesus is probably in one of these porticoes. It’s common for teachers and philosophers to debate theological and ethical interpretations here.

What’s not usual is for these debates to be motivated by the desire to have one’s opponent killed. The actions of Jesus’ critics here are not merely rhetoric; they have murderous political intention.

Luke 20:19–20 adds more detail. The scribes and chief priests want a valid excuse to arrest Jesus there and then, so they send the Pharisees and Herodians to try to trap Jesus into saying something that would incriminate Himself. “Trap” is from the Greek root word agreuo and literally means to hunt; the word implies an intent to capture by surprise. Matthew’s account uses “entangle” which is from the Greek root word pagideuo: “to ensnare, as a bird in a net” (Matthew 22:15).

The Pharisees, obsessed with the law, will determine if Jesus encourages behavior that contradicts the tenants of Judaism. The Herodians—Jews who support the Rome-empowered kings and tetrarchs—are on the look-out for any seditious intent in Jesus’ words. The priests, scribes, and Pharisees are invested in a tradition-bound version of Jewish culture; the Herodians prefer the Greek culture and Roman rule. In Jesus, they’ve had a common enemy for several years (Mark 3:6).

Context Summary
Mark 12:13–17 is clarified by insight into the Pharisees’ complex attitudes. They have very strong religious beliefs, which go beyond God’s inspired Scriptures. They hate that Israel is subjugated to Rome, but unlike the violence-minded Zealots, they aren’t a political threat. In contrast to Pharisees, the Herodians support Rome’s rule and all the benefits that go with it. These unlikely bedfellows join to trap Jesus with a question about taxes. If His answer supports the Pharisees, the Herodians can claim Jesus is rebelling against the emperor. If His answer supports the Herodians, the Pharisees can assert He doesn’t support Israel. This account is also in Matthew 22:15–22 and Luke 20:20–26.

Verse 14. And they came and said to him, “Teacher, we know that you are true and do not care about anyone ‘s opinion. For you are not swayed by appearances, but truly teach the way of God. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? Should we pay them, or should we not?”

The chief priests and the scribes have sent Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus as spies, “who [pretend] to be sincere” (Luke 20:20). The Pharisees and Herodians dislike each other in every other context, but cooperate to oppose Jesus early on in His ministry (Mark 3:6). Jesus threatens the Pharisees because He rejects their devotion to manmade traditions over the Mosaic law (Mark 7:9–13). The Herodians don’t like the thought that Jesus might start a revolution that would threaten their relationship with the Roman rulers.

The Pharisees and Herodians ironically flatter Jesus as being impartial. They know from experience that He will not overtly side with either group. But the description is valid. Because Jesus is from Galilee, not Judea, He doesn’t have to pay the tax in question. Their statement is ironic because Jesus’ answer serves neither of their intended outcomes—taking neither of the sides they wanted Him to claim.

The tax they are asking about is the kensos. It is an annual poll-tax, levied on men regardless of what property they own. Rome established it in AD 6, and the different sects of Judaism reacted to it in different ways. Around the time Jesus amazed the rabbis at the temple with His understanding of Scripture (Luke 2:41–52), some angry Jews revolted against the tax. The rebellion’s leaders insisted that paying a tax to Rome undermined God’s sovereignty over His chosen people. Now, about thirty years later, Jewish Zealots refuse to pay the tax. Pharisees do pay but wonder if it’s “lawful” according to God. Herodians support the Roman government, anyway, and either don’t see a conflict in interest or don’t care.

The Pharisees and Herodians want to know if Jesus holds similar beliefs to the Zealots. Their preferred outcome of this confrontation would be for Jesus to reject the tax. Then, He can be arrested for rebellion against the Romans (Luke 20:20). The Pharisees would win either way, since if Jesus supports the tax, His popular image as the Messiah, come to rescue the Jews from Roman rule, would be in jeopardy.

Like the similar debate regarding divorce, Jesus goes back to the basics (Mark 10:1–12). It’s not about politics or even religion; it’s about knowing your place in God and living out of that (Mark 12:17). Centuries before, Jeremiah tried to convince the people of Judah to go into exile in Babylon peacefully—that foreign subjugation was God’s will for them at that time (Jeremiah 27). Similarly, Jesus has not come to free the Jews from Rome, or its taxes, but to do the work so their hearts can return to God.

Verse 15. But, knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, “Why put me to the test? Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.”

Local religious leaders are attempting to trap Jesus by asking Him a controversial question: should Jews pay taxes demanded of them by their Roman conquerors (Mark 12:13–14). The “trap” comes in the dangers of a simple yes-or-no answer. “Yes” would anger the Jewish people, and “no” would make Jesus a rebel against Rome. As usual, Jesus defeats the trick question by exposing the real issues involved. He does this, in part, by using the Roman coin used to pay those taxes as a visual aid.

When this tax was first established, in AD 6, a Galilean named Judas responded by leading a rebellion. He believed that the Jews had only one master, God, and to pay the tax was to spiritually and morally subjugate oneself to Rome. Jesus does not accept Judas’ conclusion, but many did. In AD 66, the pressure in the nationalistic Zealot’s sect will reach a boiling point. They lead a revolt which the Romans meet in AD 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem.

The problem with Judas and the Zealots’ belief is that they put the cart before the horse. They know that God will give Israel peace and sovereignty if they obey Him (Deuteronomy 28). Instead of obeying Him and waiting for God to fulfill His promise, they try to take the blessing by force.

In God’s dealings with Israel, foreign rule is always seen as unfortunate, but it’s not treated as something the Jews need to or can escape from. It’s typically a judgment for disobedience (Jeremiah 25:8–14). In the church age, there are no theocracies for God to judge, but every believer is subject to civil authorities that are either secular or influenced by a religion other than Christianity. There is no Christian nation, and there’s not supposed to be. Those that claimed to be in the past did so because the power of the church served to enforce the rule of the king, not of God.

When the southern kingdom of Judah disobeyed God and God judged them by sending them into captivity in Babylon, Jeremiah admonished the people to submit peacefully (Jeremiah 27). We are called to do the same. We should influence the government as much as we are allowed, and if a civil law overtly contradicts God’s command, we are called to obey God—and suffer the consequences (Romans 13:1–7; 1 Peter 2:13–17). But despite what the Zealots believe and the Pharisees hope, God never promises the Jews they can win sovereignty without His direct involvement. And He never promises Christians freedom from immoral secular rule.

Verse 16. And they brought one. And he said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said to him, “Caesar ‘s.”

A denarius is a coin that represents a day’s wage for a laborer. In the parable of the laborers in the vineyard (Matthew 20:1–16), the land owner offers to pay laborers one denarius no matter when in the day they started working. The design of coin itself is scandalous to the Jews. The image of Emperor Tiberius is pressed into one side with the words “Tiberius Caesar Augustus, Son of the Divine Augustus.” Meaning, the coin claims Tiberius is a demigod and his parents are gods of the emperor cult.

More to Jesus’ point, the image on the coins also infers that Emperor Tiberius is the legal owner of the coins. They are distributed under Caesar’s authority, and he is responsible for their value. Any time the coins are used, Tiberius’ authority is acknowledged. Jesus asserts that this is okay. It is well within the rights of a government to issue coins and collect taxes. It is within a private person’s rights to use those coins and pay taxes.

This comment by Jesus is greatly enhanced by what He says next (Mark 12:17). If “bearing the image” of someone implies obligation, then coins bearing the image of Caesar are legitimately owed to Caesar. A life bearing the image of God, therefore, is rightfully owed to God (Genesis 1:27).

Paul reiterates Jesus’ words to the Christians in Rome. He explains that secular rulers are servants of God, commissioned by God to enforce justice. As such, they are owed their taxes, and we are to pay what is owed (Romans 13:1–7). It is possible to give due respect to a God-established but ungodly civil government and worship God at the same time.

Verse 17. Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar ‘s, and to God the things that are God ‘s.” And they marveled at him.

Devout Jews hate that they are ruled by Rome. They hate that even their part-Jewish kings and tetrarchs rule with Rome’s authority. They yearn for the fulfillment of the covenants God gave Abraham and David, that they will have their own nation, ruled by David’s descendant. The trick question posed to Jesus was whether Jews “ought to” pay taxes to the Romans. The assumption is that Jesus will either give a simple “no,” making Him a rebel against Rome, or a simple “yes,” angering His Jewish followers.

Jesus’ answer here does more than prove the trick question is misleading (Mark 12:13–14). It implies something crucial about our obligations to God. Coins bearing the image of Caesar are rightfully owed to Caesar—so to whom do lives bearing the image of the Creator belong (Genesis 1:27)?

Jesus isn’t explicit, here, about what the Pharisees and Herodians are withholding from God. He does go into more detail on the behavior of the Pharisees and Scribes in Matthew 23:1–36. Their public worship is designed to win the admiration of the people, not actually worship God. They burden the people with false traditions that draw them away from true God-worship. They value the minutia of the Mosaic law more than the just, merciful, and faithful character of God’s heart (Mark 7:1–13).

Cultural angst aside, there are many advantages to living in the Roman Empire. Despite periodic rebellions by the Israelites themselves, this region is relatively safe. Pax Romana means the Jews don’t have to worry about being invaded by Assyria or Babylon or Egypt. Trade routes are well-established, and thanks to geography, Israel is in the middle of the land-route between Europe and Africa. The Empire has a common language and a common currency, making trade convenient. Rome and its Caesars are the reason for this. The coin required to pay the tax has a graven image of Emperor Tiberius and wording that identifies his parents as deities. If the Jewish religious leaders have no problem carrying and using such coins to the temple itself, they should have no problem returning the coins to Caesar.

Considering all the ways the Pharisees neglect the true worship of God, paying an earthly tax to an earthly emperor shouldn’t be an issue. Jesus’ answer defeats the attempted trap, and further establishes Jesus as a philosopher to be reckoned with. Eventually, His critics will realize this and stop trying to trip Him up (Mark 12:34).

Verse 18. And Sadducees came to him, who say that there is no resurrection. And they asked him a question, saying,

The Sadducees are one sect of Judaism, like the Pharisees, Essenes, and Zealots. They believe in an extremely literal interpretation of the Old Testament and deny the existence of the spirit, judgment after death, or the afterlife. This clearly affects their lifestyle. The chief and high priests are Sadducees, as is much of the Jewish aristocracy. The Sadducees tend to be Hellenists: they welcome Greek culture. Meanwhile, the Pharisees stick to the manmade traditions of the Jewish scribes. Without a resurrection and afterlife with God to look forward to, it’s reasonable the Sadducees would seek authority and wealth on earth.

Jesus hasn’t been on the Sadducees’ radar too much yet. Until this point, most of Jesus’ controversy comes through His rejection of extra-biblical laws of the scribes and Pharisees (Mark 2:18–28; 7:7–13). Like the Herodians, the Sadducees’ sole concern is Jesus’ effect on the Roman rulers. If He, like others before Him, incite the people to rebellion, the Romans may send in an army to regain control. At the least, this will disrupt the Sadducees’ position, and at the worst destroy Jerusalem. The Sadducees’ fear will come true in AD 70, but not by Jesus’ hand.

Despite divergent theologies, the Jewish ruling council, the Sanhedrin, includes members of both the Sadducees and the Pharisees. Paul uses their distinctions to good effect when he is put on trial. He declares that he has been trained as a Pharisee and shares their beliefs on the resurrection. The Sadducees and Pharisees get into such an argument over his words that the trial is halted and the Roman guard must rescue Paul from the melee (Acts 23:6–10).

Context Summary
Mark 12:18–27 describes the Pharisees’ and Herodians’ futile attack on Jesus’ base of support. Earlier, they posed a political question, trying to force Him to choose between the Roman rulers and the Zealots (Mark 12:13–17). It didn’t work. Now, the Sadducees pose a theological question that seems to present a choice between their own woodenly literal interpretation of Scripture and the Pharisees’ broader beliefs. These religious leaders fail to understand that Jesus doesn’t need to align with any of them. If He’s on any side, it’s God’s. This riddle is also found in Matthew 22:23–33 and Luke 20:27–40.

Verse 19. “Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man ‘s brother dies and leaves a wife, but leaves no child, the man must take the widow and raise up offspring for his brother.

The Sadducees are asking a question about levirate marriages. In the ancient near-east, women were given in marriage to strengthen business ties or because her family of birth couldn’t support her. Rarely did a man and woman marry because they were deeply in love with each other, or never wanted anyone else. Marriage was crucial for a woman’s survival, as they usually had no right to own property and they would find it difficult to support themselves outside a family or clan. Like Naomi and Ruth, they needed a male relative who was willing to claim them. If their husband died and they had no son, their options were limited.

To protect young widows, the Mosaic law endorsed the levirate marriage (Deuteronomy 25:5–10). If a woman’s husband died without a son, the husband’s younger brother was obliged to marry the widow and provide a son in his name. The son would inherit the first husband’s birthright and care for his mother.

This is what was supposed to happen with Tamar, Judah’s daughter-in-law. When Judah’s oldest son married Tamar but then died, his middle brother Onan was supposed to give Tamar a son. Onan refused; he knew that if Tamar had a son, the son would claim the firstborn birthright. If Tamar didn’t have a son, Onan would become the firstborn. When Onan cheated Tamar, God killed him. Judah should then have given Tamar to his youngest son, but kept delaying in fear God would kill him, as well. Tamar finally took matters into her own hands and tricked Judah into sleeping with her. She gave birth to twin boys, one of whom is in Jesus’ genealogy (Genesis 38).

Verse 20. The Sadducees are a sect of religious Judaism, like the Pharisees, Zealots, and Essenes. Culturally, the Sadducees tend to be the high priests and the aristocracy of Jerusalem. Theologically, they interpret the Jewish Scriptures—the Old Testament—literally, especially the first five books, the Torah. Since the Torah doesn’t mention life after death, and other comments in Jewish Scriptures are vague, the Sadducees do not believe in the resurrection of the dead. This partially explains their tendency toward positions of earthly power and authority.

The Sadducees’ disbelief in an afterlife also explains their choice of riddle. The thought of dying without a son would be troubling. If a man ceases to exist after his death, the only legacy he can hope for is through his sons. That is why the concept of a levirate marriage is so important. If a man dies, his younger brother or kinsman redeemer is required by law to marry the widow and provide an heir for the older brother (Deuteronomy 25:5–10). Not only would the older brother have a legacy, the widow would have a son to care for her.

For seven brothers to die with no sons (Mark 12:22) would not only end the line of the sons, it would end the line of their father. This is a situation in which the Sadducees might hope that the resurrection of the dead is true. In this case, however, they just want to discredit Jesus, while trying to paint the idea of resurrection as absurd. If Jesus’ popularity continues to grow, and if enough people start believing that He is the Messiah, come to rescue Israel from Roman rule, the Sadducees will quickly lose their Roman allies.

Verse 21. And the second took her, and died, leaving no offspring. And the third likewise.

In the ancient near-east, a woman was vulnerable and culturally powerless without the protection of a male relative. That typically meant a father, husband, or son, but could also include a brother if he was particularly protective (2 Samuel 13:20). Sometimes women married but found themselves widowed before they had a chance to have children, most importantly a male child to become an heir of the late husband. In order to protect the woman, the Mosaic law endorsed levirate marriages. The woman would marry her late husband’s younger brother and have his child. A male child would serve as the older brother’s heir, the woman would have a son, and her living arrangements would remain stable and secure.

This was the case of Ruth. Ruth’s husband, father-in-law, and brother-in-law had died, leaving her father-in-law without a legacy and her mother-in-law, Naomi, defenseless. Ruth traveled with Naomi back to Israel where she met Naomi’s kinsman, Boaz. Boaz agreed to marry Ruth and provide Naomi’s late husband with an heir who could inherit the family land. (See the book of Ruth.)

The Sadducees are using the concept of a levirate marriage to try to trap Jesus into admitting there is no afterlife. If a woman marries seven brothers in succession but has no children, to whom is she married when she dies (Mark 12:23)? While in that time a man could be married to several women, a woman could only be married to one man at a time. Jesus points out that their premise is faulty: there is no marriage in heaven (Mark 12:25).

Verse 22. And the seven left no offspring. Last of all the woman also died.

The Sadducees are asking Jesus: if a woman has had seven legal marriages, but no children, which of the seven husbands will she be married to in the afterlife (Mark 12:23)? Mosaic law says that each marriage is lawful and just. But a woman can’t have more than one husband at a time—a cultural preference not mentioned in the Mosaic law. In the afterlife, presumably, the woman and all seven men would be present. According to the Sadducees’ woodenly literal views, this produces a logical fallacy, one which they interpret to mean there can’t be an afterlife.

Reductio ad absurdum is a tool of logic in which you follow through on an opponent’s belief to demonstrate a ridiculous end. The Sadducees’ use of seven husbands has no inherent importance; it’s just meant to be an absurdly large number of husbands. The argument is just as valid with two husbands, whether the childless woman is widowed or divorced.

But, for the Sadducees, the question covers a greater concern. Without the resurrection, their only “life” after death is through their descendants. The Sadducees tend to be the aristocracy of Jerusalem as well as the high priests. But all the wealth and authority in the world is useless without someone to pass it on to. Their disbelief of the resurrection leaves them vulnerable to obscurity.

Jesus’ answer is that the Sadducees’ rigid insistence that there is no afterlife has blinded them to other, greater, spiritual truths. The Jewish Scriptures prove there is an afterlife when God declares to Moses that He is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Exodus 3:6). If He is their God, they must be alive. As for the Sadducees’ question, the understanding of marriage must be interpreted through this greater spiritual truth: there is no marriage in heaven (Mark 12:24–27).

Verse 23. In the resurrection, when they rise again, whose wife will she be? For the seven had her as wife.”

The Sadducees are more socially liberal than the Pharisees. They enjoy the benefits of Greek culture and Roman peace. But theologically, they are actually more “conservative.” They interpret the Jewish Scriptures extremely literally and don’t fetishize oral law as the Pharisees do. According to their understanding, spirits, the afterlife, and the resurrection do not exist.

Although Jesus disagrees with the Pharisees regarding the oral law (Mark 7:1–13), He agrees with them that after death people will be resurrected and judged. The Sadducees try to use a supposedly absurd consequence of levirate marriage to prove otherwise.

In a levirate marriage, a woman whose husband has died without leaving her children will marry the man’s younger brother. The younger brother is obliged to provide the woman with a son who will care for her and be the heir of the woman’s first husband. The Sadducees present Jesus with a hypothetical situation in which a woman goes through seven brothers, each dying before she can have children. If there is an afterlife, the woman would have seven husbands. This, in the view of the Sadducees, is silly!

What the Sadducees see as clever rhetoric and logic, Jesus sees as a gross misinterpretation of Scripture. The possibility of an afterlife must be deduced from God’s character, not earthly circumstances. God told Moses that He is the God of three patriarchs long dead (Exodus 3:6). But God cannot be the God of the dead, therefore, the patriarchs must be living. This proves the resurrection of the dead, and any related issue must be interpreted through this truth. Therefore, if a woman was married seven times on earth and cannot be married to seven men in the afterlife, then marriage must not exist in the afterlife (Mark 12:24–27).

Verse 24. Jesus said to them, “Is this not the reason you are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God?

Jesus’ assertion that the Sadducees do not know the Scriptures is especially biting. The Sadducees, far more than the Pharisees, value a stridently literal interpretation of the Old Testament, specifically the first five books: the Torah. The Pharisees’ belief in the resurrection is based on only two obscure prophecies (Isaiah 26:19; Daniel 12:2) and a handful of poems (Psalms 16:9–11; 49:15; Job 19:25–26). The Sadducees disbelief in resurrection relies on an argument from silence.

The Sadducees are trying to use the law on levirate marriages, which provide for a young widow with no children, to prove there is no spirit, resurrection, or afterlife. Their attempt centers on following an idea to a ridiculous conclusion: a technique in rhetoric known as a reduction ad absurdam. However, for this technique to be meaningful, the initial assumptions must be correct. As it turns out, this absurdity merely proves that the Sadducees lack understanding.

Despite their creative machinations, Jesus rejects their supposed expertise and points the Sadducees back to the basics. You don’t go to a law on marriage to establish your theology on eternal life. You go to the scriptural truths about God. God told Moses that He is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Exodus 3:6). By the time Moses was born, these patriarchs had been dead for hundreds of years. But God identified Himself with these men. That can only mean that the patriarchs are alive, thus proving the existence of an afterlife.

Verse 25. For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

The Old Testament speaks of the afterlife in general terms. The characters speak of going to Sheol after death without really defining it (Genesis 42:38; Job 14:13). David is convinced that he will see his dead son in the afterlife (2 Samuel 12:23). The Pharisees are convinced the resurrection is real. The Sadducees are equally convinced it isn’t (or angels, for that matter: Acts 23:8). With so much ambiguity, the idea of marriage in heaven is especially murky.

“Marry” is from the Greek root word gameo and literally means to take a wife. To be “given in marriage” refers to the woman whose father approves of and allows the match. Given God’s intent for marriage—one man, one woman, both of their lives—it’s not ridiculous to assume there could be marriage in heaven. But remarrying after the death or divorce of a spouse makes the idea problematic. Even if we had multiple marriages that were perfectly biblical, which marriage would be honored in heaven?

There are several ways in which humans on earth are different from angels, but few relate to marriage. God announced the need to create Eve because “It is not good that the man should be alone” (Genesis 2:18). On earth, individual men need a companionship that is best—but not solely—provided for in marriage. The other reason for marriage is to raise children (Genesis 1:28). Neither the angels nor people in heaven have these needs. We will be reconciled to God and each other, so we won’t need one specific companion. And God’s plan for the multiplication and reconciliation of people will be complete.

The thought of an eternity without being married to one’s earthly spouse is a scary proposition for many. It helps to realize that God created marriage as a metaphor for His relationship to us. In the Old Testament, He often compared the ideas of covenant, faithfulness, and adultery in marriage to His relationship with the Israelites, as in the book of Hosea. The New Testament speaks of the church as the bride of Christ (Revelation 19:7). Marriage is God’s gift to us for companionship and partnership while raising families and working on the earth. In an eternal and sinless heaven, it is unneeded.

Verse 26. And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’?

The Sadducees are debating with Jesus over whether there is life after death. Jesus is frustrated; while these men purport to be religious experts, they don’t understand the Scriptures or God (Mark 12:24). Unlike the Pharisees and scribes, who add manmade traditions to God’s Word, Sadducees stick closely to the literal text. Knowing this, Jesus answers from Moses’ writings (Exodus 3:6). Moses came upon the voice of God coming from a bush in the wilderness that was engulfed in flames but didn’t burn up. The voice identified Itself as the God of the Jewish patriarchs—patriarchs who happened to have been dead for over four hundred years.

Jesus’ argument is not based on the present tense verb, because the verb is only implied in God’s name, not specifically used. Otherwise the statement would have been “I AM is the God…” His response is based on the nature of God as the living God (Psalm 42:2) and God’s choice to be identified by three servants who were no longer living on earth at the time He spoke from the bush. If someone faithfully followed football, watched the teams change every year, kept track of the games, and this person also identified themselves as a fan of a specific team, you could reasonably expect that the team in question still existed.

The implication made is that when God claimed to be the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, God was implying that such men still existed after their earthly lives had ended.

The Sadducees believe in a more literal translation of the Mosaic law and don’t obsess with the oral law, like scribes and Pharisees. Still, the fact that they teach theology at all means they have volunteered to be judged. Later, James will say, “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness” (James 3:1). Anyone who teaches the Scriptures needs to know the Scriptures.

Verse 27. He is not God of the dead, but of the living. You are quite wrong.”

The Sadducees have used a law about marriage to try to disprove the existence of the afterlife (Mark 12:18–23). In response, Jesus quotes the words God used to identify Himself to prove the resurrection is real. This confrontation illustrates the difference between eisegesis and exegesis. These are also described as “reading into” and “reading from” a text.

Eisegesis interprets Scripture through a preconceived worldview. It uses Scripture out of context to prove a belief. The belief comes first, and the written text is interpreted so that it agrees with the preconceived notion. In this case, the Sadducees believe that we cease to exist after we die. To prove that belief, they scour the Old Testament for a passage that confirms their bias.

What they find is the passage on levirate marriages. If a woman’s husband dies before she has children, she is to marry the man’s brother. In this way, she doesn’t have to leave the security of her in-law’s home, she gains a son to care for her, and her first husband gains an heir. The Sadducees’ hypothetical situation is that a woman’s husband dies and she winds up marrying six of his brothers with no children. Since the idea of a woman being married to seven men in the afterlife seems ridiculous, the Sadducees infer there must not be an afterlife.

Jesus uses the biblical interpretation method of exegesis. Exegesis understands the passage in context, as it is presented and intended, and derives spiritual truths from the passage itself. Jesus uses Exodus 3:6 to show that God declared that He is still the God of those who had physically died. If He is still their God, they must still exist, so there must be an afterlife. An exegetical interpretation of the law doesn’t deduce that levirate marriages prove the afterlife doesn’t exist, it deduces that in the afterlife there is no marriage (Mark 12:24–25).

The same mistake made by the Sadducees is often committed by modern critics of the Bible. They deduce an absurd conclusion, and fail to realize that the absurdity only disproves their assumptions, not Scripture itself.

Verse 28. And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, “Which commandment is the most important of all?”

It’s normal for religious leaders to come to the temple courtyard and debate each other about theology. However, the challenges against Jesus are more than intellectual exercises. The chief priests, Sadducees, Pharisees, scribes, and Herodians all see Jesus as a threat, either to their social status or to the relative peace with Rome. So, the questions the religious and civil leaders are asking Jesus are intended to get Him to say something either sacrilegious or seditious. They want Him dead, but they need reasons adequate to involve higher authorities.

Sadducees, Herodians, and Pharisees have failed, so now it is a scribe’s turn. The office of scribe is an ancient and honorable one. They originally kept records for rulers (1 Chronicles 24:6; Ezra 4:8; Esther 3:12). By the time of Jesus, they were primarily known as experts in the Mosaic law (Ezra 7:11). Ideally, they provide wise counsel on difficult matters (1 Chronicles 27:32).

Unfortunately, as in any profession, some are not so honorable. Jeremiah spoke of the “lying pen of the scribes” (Jeremiah 8:8) and Nahum described them as unfaithful as a cloud of locusts whose presence depended on the weather (Nahum 3:17).

Throughout Israel’s history, the people wavered between following God and worshiping idols. At times, the kings and priests didn’t even know where the copy of the Mosaic law was. When the people disobeyed the Law, God punished them. Eventually, the scribes grew so fearful of God’s punishment that they created interpretations of the Law that went above and beyond what God had intended. For example, while God said to do “no work” on the Sabbath, the scribes added so much manmade detail that modern Jews following their teachings won’t press buttons on such days.

The scribes claim these are “oral laws” which God gave to Moses on Mount Sinai but Moses didn’t record in writing. The Pharisees love these laws almost as much as they love enforcing them on the laypeople (Matthew 23:4). Jesus calls them manmade traditions (Mark 7:1–13) and condemns anyone who makes people feel shame for not doing what God didn’t intend.

And so now, the Pharisees have sent a scribe to test Jesus (Matthew 22:34–35). Jesus has been teaching with authority His entire ministry (Mark 1:27). If they can win a debate against Him in front of this crowd in Jerusalem, He will lose credibility and prove to not be such a threat to their religious authority. They fail to understand that no one knows God’s law as well as God’s Son does.

Context Summary
Mark 12:28–34 occurs during the last week before the crucifixion. Jesus spends time in the temple courtyard, teaching the people and debating Jewish religious and civil leaders. Intrigued by how Jesus proves the resurrection of the dead to a group of Sadducees (Mark 12:18–26), a scribe of the Pharisees (Matthew 22:34–35) asks Jesus about the greatest commandment in the Mosaic law. The central idea of Jesus’ answer is to love God and love others. But He starts at the beginning of the Shema prayer: acknowledge God is your God and He is one. This story is also in Matthew 22:34–40.

Verse 29. Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.

A scribe has asked Jesus what the “most important” or foundational commandment is (Mark 12:28). The Mosaic law has 613 commands, and the scribes added many others in the Oral Law. While all the written laws are to be obeyed, they each have a certain priority in the minds of the religious leaders. Jesus’ response is: know God, love God (Mark 12:30), love others (Mark 12:31). These commandments cover all of God’s requirements (Romans 13:8).

In this verse and Mark 12:30, Jesus quotes Deuteronomy 6:4–5 which is the beginning of the Shema prayer. Shema is from the Hebrew word for “hear,” which is the first word of the saying. Devout Jews pray the Shema in the morning and night as a way of fulfilling Deuteronomy 6:7: “…talk of [the laws]…when you lie down, and when you rise.”

Jesus only quotes the part about loving God. The prayer continues by convicting the people to remember the Law and teach it to their children (Deuteronomy 6:4–9). The full traditional prayer adds that God will bless their obedience (Deuteronomy 11:13–29) and that the Jews need to sew tassels for their cloaks as reminders to follow the Law (Numbers 15:37–41).

After quoting that we are to love God, Jesus continues that we are to love others (Mark 12:31). But it’s interesting to note that the “greatest commandment” doesn’t start with loving God and others, but with “hear.” The first principle we need to obey is to hear and understand and accept that the Lord is our God and the Lord is one. The rest of the Mosaic law—in fact, all of Scripture—means nothing without the understanding of who God is.

Verse 30. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’

“Love” here doesn’t just mean to have affections for. It is from the Greek root word agapao, which many are more familiar with through the noun agape. To agape-love someone is a choice. It is to choose to see them in a favorable light. To choose to delight in them. And to choose to faithfully act on their behalf. When we agape-love God, we see Him as honorable, true, and loving. We trust Him and respond to that trust with obedience.

Jesus adds more nuance to this love. “Heart” is from the Greek root word kardia, and means the center of one’s life, whether physical, spiritual, or mental. The heart drives one’s beliefs, emotions, thoughts, and intentions. “Soul” is from the Greek root word psychē which is similar to the heart, but focuses on the vital force that keeps us alive. “Mind” is not found in the original Old Testament quote (Deuteronomy 6:5), but is certainly appropriate to add for an audience influenced by more logical Greek culture. It comes from the Greek root word dianoia and, again, has a similar definition to heart but with a more mental bent.

So, “heart…soul…and mind” cover every aspect of our personalities, being, and thoughts, and everything which influences our feelings, beliefs, desires, and intentions.

“Strength” is a little different. It is from the Greek root word ischyos, and means force, power, and ability. The original Hebrew is from the root word me’ōde, which is also translated as “greatly, exceedingly, and diligently.” This “strength,” also translated into English as “might,” is the effort and passion with which we love God. Where the heart, soul, and mind direct how we feel and what we do, might is the force that determines the extent.

We’re not exactly sure of the scribe’s intent, here. Unlike the previous two challenges, there’s no clear “trap” involved (Mark 12:13). He might simply be asking a deliberately provocative question, expecting Jesus to pick one of the many commandments in the Mosaic law and declare it the greatest. What Jesus has done is give a commandment that encompasses the first four of the Ten Commandments, all of which concern how we interact with God. In the third part of Jesus’ answer, to love our neighbors as ourselves, He brings in the last six of the Ten Commandments. In doing so, He reveals that God’s laws are not meant to control us, they are meant to describe what it means to love.

Verse 31. The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

When a scribe challenges Jesus to choose the greatest commandment in the Mosaic law, Jesus answers with the beginning of the Shema from Deuteronomy 6:4–5: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.” This part of the Mosaic law encompasses the first four of the Ten Commandments and every other part of the Law that describes how the Israelites are to respond to God.

Jesus continues His answer from Leviticus 19:18. “Love God” is the basis for all the laws, including loving others: we cannot know how to properly love others if we don’t first love God. “Love others” fulfills all parts of the Law which don’t relate directly to God, including the last six of the Ten Commandments. When loving others, we don’t steal from them, we don’t murder them, we don’t lie about them (Exodus 20:12–17). Going further, we care for people in need (Exodus 22:21–27), we protect vulnerable women (Exodus 21:7–11), and we don’t kidnap people and sell them into slavery (Exodus 21:16).

The passage on how to love others in Leviticus identifies the “others” as “your neighbor” (Leviticus 19:13, 15), “your people” (Leviticus 19:16), “your brother” (Leviticus 19:17), and “the sons of your own people” (Leviticus 19:18). By this time, however, Jesus has already turned the concept of “your neighbor” on its ear. In the parable of the good Samaritan, Jesus explains that anyone who is near you and in need is your responsibility (Luke 10:25–37). Matthew 5:43 extends the meaning even further to include our enemies.

The scribe initially asks Jesus what the “most important” law is (Mark 12:28). That term is taken from the Greek root word prōtos, which means “foundational or principal,” implying the law from which all others come. Jesus responds by also describing this as the “greatest” law. “Greater” is from the Greek root word megas. In this case, it refers to a law that is greater in scope and degree than any other. These laws are the basis for all the Mosaic law as well as all the prophets (Matthew 22:40). Jesus’ three-part law—know God, love God, love others—isn’t just the first law we need to consider, it encompasses everything God wants us to do.

Verse 32. And the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher. You have truly said that he is one, and there is no other besides him.

The Jewish religious and civil leaders have spent several days trying to trap Jesus into doing something they can use to destroy Him (Mark 12:12). Their latest salvo is to send a scribe, an expert in the Law, to ask Jesus what the foremost of the Mosaic laws is. Jesus gives a three-part response: to know God, love God, and love others. The scribe rightfully starts where Jesus does: know and understand that God the Master is one. The addition that “there is no other besides him” is certainly consistent with the affirmation of God’s oneness and comes from Deuteronomy 4:35.

Parallelism is a type of poetry that repeats ideas instead of sounds, and it is very popular in Jewish literature. The parallelism in Hosea 6:6 shows how this first line of the Shema fits with the call to love God and others: “For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice | The knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.”

To know God, to understand and accept and live out of the knowledge that He is God and there is no other, is the foundation for love.

In most of Jesus’ altercations with the Pharisees and scribes, the arguments are more personal. They especially turn on how the two groups added to Mosaic law in ways God does not intend, and which the people find burdensome (Matthew 23:4). The result of these altercations is usually that the scribes and Pharisees want to destroy Jesus (Mark 3:6; 11:18). In this more philosophical debate, the scribe publicly acknowledges Jesus’ wise answer. He even respectfully calls Jesus a “teacher.”

Verse 33. And to love him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one ‘s neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.”

Whether by revelation or affirmation, the scribe has succinctly stated what Jesus has been trying to tell the Pharisees for three years: ritual means nothing without obedience of the heart. The scribes have spent centuries adding to the Mosaic law, trying to create a hedge so that the people will obey God and God won’t punish the nation. Here, the scribe not only ignores those extra laws, he dismisses the ceremonial law as irrelevant compared to the ethical law of know God, loving Him, and loving others.

Here, a “burnt offering” refers to the offerings the Israelites give that are wholly consumed (Leviticus 1). A “sacrifice” is something the offeror, priests, and/or the priests families eat (Leviticus 2; 7).

The supremacy of love to offerings and sacrifices is well established in the Old Testament. God established the sacrificial system to cover the sins of the Israelites and allow them a ceremonial outlet with which to show their thankfulness. But the sacrificial system would be all but unnecessary if they just obeyed the law (1 Samuel 15:22; Proverbs 21:3), and the ultimate point of the Law is to show how they are to love God and others (Hosea 6:6).

This message is even more important to Mark’s Jewish readers who follow Jesus in the context of their native Judaism. Within ten years of the completion of the Gospel, Jerusalem is under siege. Shortly after, the city is destroyed and the temple torn apart, stone by stone (Mark 13:2). Since that time, Jews have not been able to sacrifice at the temple and have no way to fulfill the Mosaic law except through love (Romans 13:8, 10).

Verse 34. And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And after that no one dared to ask him any more questions.

One of the scribes, an expert in the Mosaic law, has asked Jesus to identify the primary commandment. Jesus responds that if we know God, love God, and love others, we will fulfill the whole Law. The scribe responds that this three-fold commandment even trumps the system of offerings and sacrifices God developed to cover the sins of the Israelites and honor Him.

The phrase “kingdom of God” has been interpreted to mean “going to heaven.” While heaven is certainly part of the kingdom of God, the phrase encompasses much more. It means any situation where God’s glory and authority are on display. In this case, it means that the scribe’s acknowledgement of the spirit of the Law and how it supersedes the specifics of the Law has led him very close to an understanding of the truth of God’s plan of salvation. By discussing the Law, the scribe has stumbled to within a few steps of Jesus.

It’s a provocative statement. This scribe, who identifies with a group of religious leaders who are attempting to have Jesus arrested, stands affirmed by Jesus and is very close to being accepted by Him—the same Jesus who only recently overturned the tables of the merchants who supplied the sacrifice-as-business industry (Mark 11:15–19). Some leaders do understand and believe in Jesus, but they fear the shame of the rejection of the Pharisees and the loss of approval of the people (John 12:42–43). Others believe and follow Jesus in secret (John 19:38).

After the Herodians and Pharisees (Mark 12:13) ask Jesus about taxes, His answer silences them (Luke 20:26). After Jesus answers the Sadducees about the resurrection, they, too, fall quiet (Luke 20:40). Now that Jesus has not only answered but shown encouragement to a scribe, this final group grows still. Once Jesus shows the crowd how the Messiah will rule over David, no one will dare ask Him anything more (Matthew 22:46).

Verse 35. And as Jesus taught in the temple, he said, “How can the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David?

Matthew adds more detail to this incident. Jesus asks the gathered Pharisees who they think is the father of the Christ. They respond that the Messiah is the son of David (Matthew 22:41–42). The Messiah wasn’t referred to directly as the “son of David” until the mid-first century BC in writings by scribes. Like in Mark 9:11–13, Jesus doesn’t contradict this scribal teaching but explains more fully what it means. He compares it to Psalm 110:1 (Mark 12:36) and shows how two seemingly contradictory statements can both be true.

In Judaism, the ancestor “outranks” and represents all his descendants. This is shown in the argument that the priesthood of Melchizedek is pre-eminent over the priesthood of the Levites because Abraham, great-grandfather to Levi, tithed to Melchizedek (Hebrews 7:1–10). It would follow, then, that the Messiah, who would be the descendant of King David, would be subordinate to David (1 Chronicles 17:11–14; Jeremiah 23:5–6). So, tradition would state that while the Messiah would be a significant figure, rescuing Israel from her Gentile oppressors, he would be a man no more special than David.

The Bible uses the term “son of” in a couple of different ways. First, it can mean a male descendant of any generation. Jesus fulfills this requirement both through Joseph’s genealogy (Matthew 1:6–16) and Mary’s (Luke 3:23–31). “Son of” can also mean someone who exemplifies another’s character. Jesus called the scribes and Pharisees sons of Satan because they tried to find a way to kill Jesus rather than recognizing He spoke the truth from God (John 8:39–47). The Messiah will be the “son” of David in this exemplary way because he will be king of a united Israel and will rule justly with a mind to God’s heart.

Whether a biological descendant or one who images the character of another, David’s “son” could not also be his “Lord” (Mark 12:36). Jesus wants to prove that the Messiah is more than just David’s son. He can’t be defined merely as a successor to David. In fact, He is David’s Lord.

Context Summary
Mark 12:35–37 occurs after Jesus’ detractors have surrendered their challenges, but Jesus continues teaching. Here, He explains the Messiah must be much more than merely David’s son. Blind Bartimaeus (Mark 10:48) and the crowd at the triumphal entry (Mark 11:10) have already identified Jesus as the Son of David. In the parable of the tenants (Mark 12:1–12), Jesus suggests that He is the Son of the one who has authority. During one of the trials before the crucifixion, Jesus will formally acknowledge that He is ”the Christ, the Son of the Blessed” (Mark 14:61–62). Jesus’ explanation about the Messiah is also found in Matthew 22:41–46 and Luke 20:41–44.

Verse 36. David himself, in the Holy Spirit, declared, “‘The Lord said to my Lord,”Sit at my right hand,until I put your enemies under your feet.”’

In addition to being a shepherd, mighty warrior, king, and a man after God’s own heart, David was also a poet. He wrote at least seventy-three of the psalms. They include psalms of lament, thanksgiving, and imprecation or request that someone be judged. It’s not clear if David knew that many of his psalms are also prophecies, but Psalm 110 certainly is.

Psalm 110 begins with this verse that Jesus quotes. The first “Lord” in Jesus’ quote is printed as “LORD” in the psalm, which translates to Yahweh, or God. The second title, “my Lord” is the Hebrew Adonai, used for an earthly authority, or as a reverent title for God. The psalm goes on to say that God will expand “the Lord’s” kingdom. The Lord will rule despite being surrounded by enemies, and His people will follow Him willingly. The Lord will also be a priest in the order of Melchizedek which outranks the priests from the tribe of Levi (Hebrews 7:1–10).

All this to mean, the figure who will fulfill this prophecy is called “my Lord” by David, despite being David’s descendant. While Jesus is the physical descendant (Luke 3:23–31) and legal descendant (Matthew 1:6–16) of David and will rule Israel in a similar manner, He is not solely defined by this subordinate relationship to David. Contrary to cultural assumptions of the time, David’s “son” outranks David.

He does so because He is not only David’s son. Much as Jesus is a priest of the order of Melchizedek, and therefore has a claim to priestly authority over Aaron’s descendants (Hebrews 7), Jesus receives the authority to reign as king from God, not David.

Verse 37. David himself calls him Lord. So how is he his son?” And the great throng heard him gladly.

Just as the spiritual priesthood of Melchizedek supersedes that of Abraham’s descendants (Hebrews 7), David understands that God’s spiritual kingdom has supremacy over Israel. This is what Jesus has been trying to teach the disciples for the last three years. He has not come to rescue Israel from foreign threat—yet (Jeremiah 30). First, He must fight the spiritual battle for the souls of humanity.

It’s unclear how much the crowds fully understand. Jesus has been debating the Jewish religious and civil leaders all day, by turns frustrating and impressing them with His wisdom. The Pharisees understand that many consider Jesus to be the Messiah but, like the disciples, do not understand who the Messiah really is and what He has come to do. Many think He has just come to free Israel from Roman rule, a thought which terrifies the Herodians and Sadducees who stand to lose their influence and authority. The Pharisees and scribes understand from their many altercations that if Jesus comes to ruling position, He will eradicate the manmade traditions by which they lord over the people.

In this last week, Jesus obliquely poked at the religious teachers in a way that left no doubt that He was claiming to be God and the Son of God. Here, He uses David’s own prophecy to show that the Messiah, David’s “son,” has authority over David, himself. The Messiah isn’t just the earthly son of a king, come to reestablish that kingdom.

The text is unclear as to why Jesus adds this teaching, but the crowd’s reaction hints at a possibility. Jesus has challenged the authority the Herodians and Pharisees (Mark 12:13), the Sadducees (Mark 12:18), and the scribes (Mark 12:28). Now, the religious leaders have nothing to say (Mark 12:34; Matthew 22:46). The people, however, are delighted by the show, and ready to hear a more thorough condemnation of the scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 23).

Verse 38. And in his teaching he said, “Beware of the scribes, who like to walk around in long robes and like greetings in the marketplaces

Jesus has commended a scribe of the Pharisees for his understanding that loving God and others is more important than following the regimented Mosaic law. He even says the scribe is close to finding the kingdom of God (Mark 12:28–34). Shortly after, Jesus uses Scripture and logic to prove that although the Messiah is the Son of David, His authority to rule comes directly from God (Mark 12:35–37). Now Jesus goes on the attack, so to speak.

Where Mark merely mentions “greetings,” Matthew explains that the scribes like to be called “rabbi” (Matthew 23:7). Jesus says that to seek out the title of rabbi, father, or instructor is dangerous. Such positions invite a great deal of God’s scrutiny (James 3:1) and seeking this approval and attention shows the opposite of the servant-heart Jesus calls His followers to have (Mark 9:33–37; 10:35–45).

The scribes are very knowledgeable, but their vanity and pride of their expertise in the Law leads them to miss the truth about the Messiah. Even the way they dress is meant to attract the adoration of the people. Unlike the utilitarian robes most wear, religious leaders prefer white linen with over-sized fringes or tassels. The tassels are a God-ordained reminder of the Mosaic Law (Numbers 15:38), but the excessive length is for show (Matthew 23:5). Jesus has no more respect for long tassels than He does for large offerings (Mark 12:41–44).

Mark highlights only a handful of offenses the Pharisees commit, but Matthew lists more. They claim to have the way to heaven, but can only lead others to hell (Matthew 23:13–15). They value what people do and give more than the God they serve and give to (Matthew 23:16–22). Despite the earlier scribe’s insistence that love is greater than the Law, the scribes live as if the ceremony of the Law is greater than justice, mercy, and faithfulness (Matthew 23:23–24). While they insist they would have accepted the words of the Old Testament prophets, Jesus prophesies that they will persecute and even kill the prophets that are to come (Matthew 23:29–36).

Context Summary
Mark 12:38–40, a condemnation of the scribes, is the last of Jesus’ public teaching recorded in the Synoptic Gospels. It’s unclear when exactly John 12:20–50 occurs. Mark 12:41–44 and 13:1–2 are directed at the disciples, and Mark 13:3–37 at Peter, James, John, and Andrew. Mark 14 covers the preparation for the crucifixion, Mark 15 the trials and crucifixion itself, and Mark 16 the resurrection. This last public teaching covers the corruption of the traditional Jewish teachers. Luke 20:45–47 is similar to Mark’s account while Matthew 23:1–36 goes in a great deal more detail.

Verse 39. and have the best seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at feasts,

The “best seat” in a synagogue is in front, with one’s back to the chest that holds the Torah. People who give feasts feel honored if a scribe and his followers join them. They honor the scribe in return by giving him the best seat—even above the hosts’ parents. Jesus’ half-brother James will insist that such behavior has no place in the church, and that the people the world honors are usually those who blaspheme Jesus and oppress His followers (James 2:1–7).

Jesus has already talked about the how inappropriate it is to presumptively take a seat of honor at a banquet (Luke 14:7–11). If we assume a prominent position, the host may find someone more important and publicly shame us as he moves us to the foot of the table. But if we take a humble seat, the host may honor us by moving us up. Not that we should seek such honor, of course; but it’s better to assume a humble position than to be embarrassed when we’re moved there later.

Matthew more specifically says that the scribes sit “on Moses’ seat” (Matthew 23:2). There is debate as to whether this is a specific seat in the synagogue, but that’s unlikely since there were no synagogues at the time of Moses—only the tabernacle. More likely, it means the role of an authoritative spiritual teacher who teaches the law and judges how it should be followed. As scribes, it’s a valid job description. The way they fulfill their duties, however is dishonorable and ungodly.

Verse 40. who devour widows ‘ houses and for a pretense make long prayers. They will receive the greater condemnation.”

A scribe is an expert in the Mosaic law, like a lawyer. They do not receive a commission for their teaching, and in fact, the Tractate Nedarim 37a, 62a states that it is unethical to use good deeds or the Torah to “magnify thyself” or as “a spade to dig with.” The scribes have found a way to work around this prohibition.

Instead of using the Torah to earn a salary, the scribes encourage the belief that the people will be blessed by God if they support the scribes financially and practically. The rich can afford to be generous, but widows are often more tender-hearted than financially astute. The scribes either take advantage of that generosity or, for those widows who have asked scribes to manage their assets, steal from them. Either tact is foolish considering God has said He will judge those who prey on widows (Isaiah 10:1–4).

Paul doesn’t subscribe to scribal tradition. He teaches that religious teachers should be directly supported by those they serve (1 Timothy 5:17–18). Many self-titled preachers today combine the two sentiments, insisting that if their congregation gives them enough money for a lavish lifestyle, God will bless the givers. Like the situation with the scribes, this is false teaching and spiritual abuse.

Jesus isn’t condemning long prayers, as we are told to “pray without ceasing” (1 Thessalonians 5:17). He is saying we shouldn’t pray grandly as if we are sincerely talking to God when we’re really looking for attention. “Pretense” is from the Greek root word prophasis, which means “for show, with a false motive.” One of the problems with praying for worldly reasons is that you only get worldly rewards (Matthew 6:5).

Pretentious prayers are still common today. Many people sermonize when they ought to be praying, instead. They may start with, “God, let this person understand…” and then go off on a misdirected lecture about everything they want the person to change. Or they may “humble-brag” by “thanking” God for a particularly long list of perceived blessings (Luke 18:9–14). Prayers of thanks, or expressions of self-esteem, are valid if they are sincere and done in secret (Matthew 6:6). When they are done in public, they serve as attempts to either scold or impress others.

Mark 12:38–40 is a quick synopsis of Jesus’ condemnation of the scribes and Pharisees. At the end of Matthew’s account of this incident in Matthew 23, Jesus calls the religious leaders vipers sentenced to hell and compares them to Cain, who killed his brother Abel out of jealousy for his relationship to God (Matthew 23:33, 35). Jesus then mourns for Jerusalem and its people who kill the prophets God sends to draw them to Him (Matthew 23:37–39).

Verse 41. And he sat down opposite the treasury and watched the people putting money into the offering box. Many rich people put in large sums.

“The treasury” mentioned here doesn’t refer to the collection of money used to build and support the temple (Joshua 6:19; Ezra 2:69; Nehemiah 7:70–71), but the actual area of the temple where the offerings are collected; this area is also called the Court of Women because women are not allowed to enter any further into the temple complex. That Jesus is “opposite” the treasury suggests He may be sitting under the east portico, not far from the Beautiful Gate which looks out over the Mount of Olives, which is His next destination (Mark 13:1–3).

Shekalim, Chapter 6, Mishnah 5 says the temple had thirteen trumpet-shaped chests, one each for the present and previous censuses (Exodus 30:13), four to support the sacrifices, one for the mercy seat, and six for freewill offerings. The fact that the woman does not put in a shekel and the rich give more than a shekel suggests Jesus is referring to the freewill offerings. When Jesus says that the hypocrites “sound” a “trumpet” when they give (Matthew 6:2), He is probably referring to the noise a handful of coins makes when dropped into one of these chests.

It is, of course, moral and acceptable to donate a large amount of money to a church or ministry. Christian organizations appreciate generosity! Jesus is merely using this opportunity to explain that the sacrificial posture of this woman’s heart is more precious to God than all the gold and silver the rich men give. God already owns the whole world; what He wants is our faithfulness (Psalm 50:7–11).

Context Summary
Mark 12:41–44 relates an event also found in Luke 21:1–4. Jesus has spent much of the week arguing with men who often misinterpret Scripture for personal gain. He has spent much of His ministry teaching the disciples that to truly follow Him they must be humble (Mark 9:33–37; 10:35–45). Jesus’ public ministry is finished. From now until the arrest in the garden of Gethsemane, He will teach the disciples and spend time with friends (Mark 14:3–9). But before He leaves the temple courtyard, Jesus points out one person who understands what it means to faithfully follow God.

Verse 42. And a poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which make a penny.

The copper coins the woman offer are Greek lepta. Her two coins add up to a “penny,” the Greek kodrantēs. About sixty-four kodrantēs would make up a denarius, or a day’s wage for a laborer. Three-hundred-eighty kodrantēs would make a shekel. Using modern equivalents from the United States, if a laborer earns a day’s wage of sixty-four dollars, the woman is giving the equivalent of one dollar.

The chest she has put the coins into is likely one of six dedicated to freewill offerings. That means she has absolutely no obligation to donate at all. It’s interesting to note that Jesus honors her offering and does not try to stop her. We don’t know her situation. We know that if we trust God, He will add to the food and clothing we need, but He will not necessarily keep us from starving (Matthew 6:33). Jesus has made it very clear that children are to care for their aging parents (Mark 7:9–13), but we don’t know if this woman has family.

We may find ourselves in a position where we need to step in when an elderly relative is being tricked into giving money to a religious charlatan. These false teachers promise that if people send in money to their ministry, God will bless them with both money and health. They also pressure their victims into feeling guilty if they don’t give.

Jesus has shown that the temple complex is similarly corrupt (Mark 11:15–19), but the woman is not giving to the rich priests and greedy city elders. She’s giving to God and His temple. She trusts God to take care of her. She doesn’t offer some of the abundant resources she owns; she offers her whole self, something the rich young ruler was unable to do (Mark 10:17–22). It is this heart that Jesus says is essential to receive eternal life (Mark 8:34–38).

Verse 43. And he called his disciples to him and said to them, “Truly, I say to you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the offering box.

Jesus and the disciples are in the temple courtyard. Jerusalem is filled with visitors as it is only a few days before Passover. In the courtyard, priests, city elders, legal scribes, legalistic Pharisees, and literal-minded Sadducees have come to see and be seen. They all have ideas about what it means to be righteous before God and which parts of the Mosaic law are most important. But they all agree that power, influence, and authority in their chosen milieus are essential to their well-being.

For most, that includes letting it be known that they have wealth and that they give significantly to the treasury for the upkeep of the temple. The temple is designed and built to be the place where God meets with the high priest once a year and accepts the offerings of the people. Its meaning had grown, by the time of Jesus’ earthly ministry, to be a symbol of Israel and the Jewish people. It was the equivalent of the modern Statue of Liberty, Eiffel Tower, or Big Ben. To be seen generously donating to the temple is to be known as someone who keeps Israel together.

When Jesus indicates that the widow gave “more,” He isn’t necessarily referring to the percentage of her assets, although that’s part of it. It’s the attitude with which she gives. This attitude is also seen in the chief tax collector Zacchaeus who, when shown encouragement by Jesus, joyfully accepts Him and proves it by promptly giving half his goods to the poor and recompensing his victims fourfold (Luke 19:1–10). No doubt, such generosity doesn’t place Zacchaeus in the same impoverished tax-bracket as the widow, but his attitude is the same. Compare Ananias and Sapphira who donate money to the church, but do so only to gain recognition (Acts 5:1–11).

Verse 44. For they all contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, all she had to live on.”

The point of this story is that the widow willingly gives God all she has, trusting that He will take care of her, as opposed to the rich who contemplate how much they can give without being inconvenienced. Inevitably, however, discussions will arise about the theological and practical implications of giving to God.

Does she have to give all she had? Of course not. When Ananias and Sapphira donate money they earn from selling land, God does not strike them down because they withhold some of the proceeds but because they lie about it (Acts 5:1–11). Their intention was personal pride, not support for God.

When Jesus tells the rich young ruler that to gain eternal life he has to sell all his possessions and give to the poor, Jesus doesn’t mean that the rich can’t be saved. Jesus can tell by the man’s assertion that he obeys the Ten Commandments relating to people that he has a hard time honoring God above his chosen idol—money. Jesus’ stipulation is about idolatry, not forced poverty (Mark 10:17–22).

Jesus’ closest friends outside His twelve disciples are Mary, Martha, and Lazarus. At least once, if not twice, in the course of a week Mary anoints Jesus with three hundred-denarii-worth of perfume (John 12:1–8; Mark 14:3–9). When the disciples challenge her, Jesus tells them that her offering is far more important than the Twelve’s finances.

In the church age, there is no standard for how much we should give or what percentage of our wealth we should donate. Like Zacchaeus, we should give as much as we feel God is leading us (Luke 19:1–10) and we should give joyfully (2 Corinthians 9:7). Most importantly, we should recognize that we are giving to God. If we give so that others can see us and praise our generosity, our desires are for worldly status and not devotion to God (Matthew 6:1–4).

End.

Please Note:

The material use in this post is from BibleRef.com which is from Got Questions Ministries and is posted here to be read by Immersive reader in the Edge Browser. If you copy this material please follow these rules:

•Content from BibleRef.com may not be used for any commercial purposes, or as part of any commercial work, without explicit prior written consent from Got Questions ministries.

•Any use of our material should be properly credited; please make it clear the content is from BibleRef.com.

•BibleRef.com content may not be altered, modified, or otherwise changed unless such changes are specifically noted.