Mark 12

Springboard from last chapter: Jesus left the scribes and elders with an unanswered question. He then begins to teach on the question by using parables. This is indicated by the first word in the chapter “and”. Jesus answered them that He was not going to tell them where He had His authority from. I am going to teach around the parable. It will be necessary to read the parable for context. I am assuming that you  have read and understand the parable with the following commentary.

Mark 12:1-12 Yeshua roped the teachers in to the parable by speaking of a familiar theme that runs through the scriptures. He added appeal to the subject by personalizing the parable by speaking of a landowner who went on a journey. Lastly, He related the parable to prophecy by bringing in the understanding of the vineyard of the Lord. We are going to cover a few basics so that we can see what the teachers were reacting to. We need to know what their mindset was when they heard Yeshua teach.

Jesus taught from Torah. Vineyards through the scriptures speak of a constant form of wealth. They are established in a land and show the wealth of the land. Those dwelling in the land gain great wealth from them and those conquering a land will in inherit the vineyards as a bonus. There are a few places in the scriptures where the vineyard is used as a parable. Yeshua refers to these places by quoting directly from the scriptures (Isa 5:1).  Here we pick up with the parable of the vineyard and a running discussion through most of this chapter between Jesus, the Pharisees, Sadducees and Scribes.

Yeshua teaches from the parable but tweaks it slightly. The similarity is definitive in nature, narrowing the understanding from a “beloved” to the “beloved son”. That is the word “beloved” is created since we do not have the concept in English. We do not have a word for “agape” love in the English since it is virtually unheard of. The idea behind “agape” is a love that gives without any expectation of reciprocal response. No love is expected in return. This “agape” son represented an expected sacrifice that the landowner was making.

Isaiah 5: “Beloved” is the key that links Yeshua’s parable with the parable that Isaiah teaches. The word “beloved” found in the Hebrew scripture (Isa 5:1) is the word “agapatos” that is used by Jesus! The Greek Septuagint uses the word “agapatos” for the Hebrew word “Dodi” in Isaiah 5:1. The link between the passages is extremely interesting. In the Hebrew passage, the vineyard is created for the beloved. God created the vineyard for His beloved. Yeshua tweaks the story by identifying the Son as the beloved one.

You can bet that the teachers and leaders fully understood what Yeshua was teaching. In previous discussions we covered that the Hebrew listeners understood that quoting a verse from a passage meant that the entire passage was to be taken into account. Yeshua quoted one verse from Isaiah 5. The entire passage’s context becomes involved with the teaching.

The idea of respect is loaded with the possibility of rejection. Respect is the expected outcome, yet, we can see from the context that the landowner is testing the vine-growers. Respect is rather funny in a way. If you demand respect, it is no longer true respect but rather obedience from the basis of fear. This is more of a requirement, where respect is freely given. Fear driven obedience does not garner respect, it garners compliance. Respect on the other hand speaks of the freedom of choice. The choice to allow respect and the choice to reject the option. “Will they respect my son?” Is the unwritten question that permeates the passage. Context sets up a scenario where everyone sent prior to the son was totally rejected. The vineyard owner hoped to scratch up a small nugget of respect by sending his only son.

Let’s remember the audience. These were the scribes and elders who questioned Jesus’ authority to teach (Mark 11:27).  They represented the religious system that was in place at the time.

God gave the teachers of the Torah the responsibility of leading the Jews.  In other words, they were responsible for leading and mentoring the Jewish people in Torah and guiding them in their walk with the Lord. God expected good grapes from the vineyard that only yielded worthless grapes (Isa 5). God warns that if the vineyard only produces bad grapes that He is going to destroy the vineyard (Isa 5:5-6). They failed to listen to the instructions of God (Isa 5:12). God’s people go into exile because of their lack of knowledge of God’s instructions (Isa 5:13). The judgment of Isaiah hits directly at the falsehood and double standard of the teachers (Isa 5:21).

Through Hebrew history, the vine-growers were the religious leaders.  The wall around the vineyard was Torah, it was designed to protect and nourish the people of God.  The vines themselves represented the Jews. Grapes produces from the Vines represented the fruits of following God’s instructions. Bad grapes are a metaphor for malnourished grapes which have been poorly cared for.

The slaves of the owner were the prophets that God had sent through the ages.  In almost every case, the prophets were killed or thrown over the wall.  The prophets who sought to focus the attention of the Jews on God were killed, shunned or banished.  According to Jesus’ Parable:  God said, I will send My Son, and surely they will treat Him right. But the religious leaders once again were challenged.

Jesus brought the parable back to specifically point toward Himself by quoting from Psalm 118:23-24.  Remember context! The passage is messianic pointing to the coming Messiah. The gates of righteousness look forward to salvation (Ps 118:19-21). Let’s take that apart for a moment. Righteousness or living a righteous life according the Hebrew mindset is only possible by following the instructions of God (Torah). One who follows Torah lives a life of righteousness. One who does not follow Torah lives a life of unrighteousness. The one who is righteous lives his life according to God’s instructions. Simple, right?

Psalm 118:21 The writer says that “You (referring to the Lord) have become my salvation”. The Hebrew is revealing. It says simply “you have become my Yeshua”. If modern Christians were to translate the passage, they would probably translate it as “you have become my Jesus”. The word for salvation in the Hebrew is Yeshua! This is the stone that the builders rejected and became the chief cornerstone (Ps 118:22)!

Now we understand why the religious leaders wanted to seize Jesus on the spot (Mark 12:12). Jesus spoke the parable against the religious leaders. He promised to remove the vine tenders, and the vineyard would soon be given to others. The Jewish leaders were soon removed, the gentiles took over the vineyard.  To make matters worse, Yeshua taught them from a parable that named Him. What could they say? He merely quoted scripture.

Church leaders have misunderstood this parable. Many think that they “replaced” the Jews by becoming the new “owners” of the vineyard. They do not realize that rather than being “owners”, they are merely vine-tenders. Replacement theology is the single greatest heresy that has been taught by the Church as a whole. We have not replaced the Jewish people! Paul addresses this when He discusses the olive tree and the branches (Ro 11:16-32). God will eventually restore the original vine tenders. This is a big part of what the Messianic movement is all about. God is restoring His people. The Church age is rapidly coming to a close and soon the Jewish people will once again tend God’s vineyard. There is one caveat. God has created a new vineyard that joins the Jew and Gentile together to create a “new man”. This hybrid form of believer embraces the Messiah as the master of their lives.

Mark 12:13-17  We established earlier that Yeshua had returned to Jerusalem for the final days. The set of teachings that we are looking at is a mix of different tactics as they narrow in on how to eliminate Jesus from the equation.  In these final few chapters of teaching, we will be seeing intensified attack by the religious leaders and an intimate focus on living life according to Torah. We will also be seeing prophetic elements coming out of Torah that will look forward to the end times.

The disciples did not understand that the Messiah was destined to be killed. Prophecy stated that once the temple was rebuilt, the Messiah would soon come (Dan 9:25). Then shortly afterward The Messiah would be cut off, or quite literally die (Dan 9:26). Then war was prophesied to break out which would ultimately destroy the temple and put an end to the sacrificial offerings (Dan 9:27). This destruction was not like any other before it, since it was a complete destruction. As the clock winds down in these final chapters, we will see an intensified focus on teaching along with focused mental fencing with the teachers.

Signs and wonders are not mentioned in the final chapters of Mark. Bartimaeus, the blind man, was the final healing that Mark records (Mark 10:46-52). Perhaps the reason for mentioning him last was that the focus would be to remove the spiritual blindness that was plaguing the believers. While removing this spiritual blindness, the religious authorities would become intensely offended. Watch as we explore the teachings that come from this focus.

In the previous chapter, we looked at the final wonder. This was the cursing of the fig tree (Mark 11:13-14; 19-26). The symbolism and importance of this incident was to call judgment upon the religious system. For more information look back at the discussion on that chapter. The focus has shifted in these final chapters to intense teaching.

The Pharisees were a group of scholars who studied the scriptures and constantly focused upon right interpretation of the scriptures. Paul was a pharisee. The Herodians were a political group that supported Herod and the Roman Empire. They sought to make peace between the common people and Herod. In every society, regardless of the evil of a ruler, there are those who support the evil ruler. In American politics we often see this in graphic detail. Regardless of the nature of the president, good or bad, there are always supporters in his corner. The Pharisees and Herodians were an unlikely group to join together since they were at odds philosophically and religiously.

We have an authority present that is not mentioned, “they sent” (Mark 11:27; 12:13). This is the authority of the chief priests, scribes and elders. They appointed a group of Pharisees and Herodians to make this frontal attack on Yeshua.

This is also a passage where we can get a better picture of the word “hypocrite” or more specifically “hypocrisy” (Mark 12:15). The group of men that were sent were not asking the question of their own interest. They were sent to play a role as interested students who wanted clarification on paying taxes. A hypocrite is one who plays religion as a role but does not have his heart invested in truly wishing to follow God. This is a person who is pretending to be something that he is not. The idea of “hypocrite” is the idea of an actor playing a role for a play.

The teaching from this section is almost a “by the way” teaching. Paying taxes to king and country is a requirement of every citizen. The Hebrew people were warned of this requirement when they demanded a king like the Gentile kings (1 Sam 8:15). This commandment was a direct warning by God to the Hebrew people when they demanded a king. The requirement was so basic that arguing the reasoning behind paying taxes is totally ignored.

“Bring me a denarius”: Yeshua established that the likeness on the coin was Caesar. Caesar was king. Therefore, you pay taxes to Caesar. The rule that was set in place by Samuel still stood. A common theme through the scriptures is that God appoints the king over the people. The righteous and unrighteous, Jew and Gentile, all kings from the time of Samuel onward were appointed by God for specific purposes and focuses. The scriptures that support this permeate the Old Testament. Paul teaches specifically on government and ruling authorities (Ro 13:1-8). Yeshua simply stated that they were to pay taxes and tithes. The implication is that both are commanded by God and expected.

Why were they amazed if they understood the scriptures (Mark 12:17)? The disciples were not the only ones who recognized Yeshua as the Messiah or possibly as the Messiah. Everyone expected the Messiah to overthrow the rule of Rome and set up his own earthly kingdom. When Yeshua stated that they must pay taxes to Caesar it carried an important message. Caesar was king. Yeshua was not setting up an earthly kingdom and expected people to pay taxes to the earthly king that was set in place. The message was simple yet profound. He had no intention of throwing off Roman authority.

In the past, I considered this passage to be one of answering a trick question in a “gothcha” type of way. The deeper teaching of the question settles on the role of Yeshua as Messiah. He had no intention of setting up an earthly kingdom. God appointed the King in place. Pay taxes and pay tithes. Yeshua was not setting up a messianic kingdom on earth at that time. If He were to act as they expected the Messiah to act, then one of the first orders of business would have been to throw off Roman rule. They did not understand the requirement that the Messiah must die, and that total desolation would follow.

Mark 12:18-27  The next group, the Sadducees. The question is formed in a classic way. First scripture is quoted and then the argument is presented.  Torah teaches that if a man does not have children, then his next of kin marries his wife and has a child through her to continue the family name. The implication of the original instructions is that the next of kin will have a son to continue the family name (Deut 25:5-10). In the scenario that was put forth, seven brothers married the same woman and she had no children.

The Sadducees did not believe in a resurrection. The Rabbi’s had argued the point to where it was a point of confusion in that day. Their question was around a classic debate that differentiated the Scribes from the Pharisees. This argument was one that was well thought out and argued well. They were prepared for any response that Yeshua made, or so they thought…

Yeshua responded with a simple statement. Their reasoning was defective on two parts.  They did not understand the scriptures and they did not understand the power of God. This was a heavy blow for them. The current Rabbi’s considered all interpretations to be equally valid. This same idea is carried in Jewish circles today. Doctrine is subject to the interpreter. The Jewish people feel that there are many different ways to view a single scripture. There is not really a “correct” way to view the scripture since each Rabbi has his own take on them. Consequently, this “take” is drawn from the other Rabbi’s that he has studied. All views are valid if they are arguable. Yeshua skipped all of this and authoritatively stated that they were “mistaken”.

“Mistaken” in English is rather mild. It denotes a misunderstanding of some kind. The word “planao” from the Greek carries a much heavier punch:

17. planáō seldom denotes secular deceiving. Religious seduction, which leads to idolatry, is the work of false prophets and unfaithful rulers (Dt. 13:6; 2 Kgs. 21:9) or of false gods (Hos. 8:6; Am. 2:4). Israel is the object, signs etc. are used (Dt. 13:2–3), and bribes may be the motive (Is. 3:12). God himself may lead astray, e.g., the Gentiles in Job 12:23, the mighty in Job 12:24, lying prophets in Ezek. 14:9, and the people in Is. 63:17.^[1]

The idea of the word carries the idea of extreme deception. What appears to us to be a mild correction is a focused and intense rebuke on the highest level. These men were studied students of the Scriptures and they allowed themselves to be grossly deceived by their leaders.

Yeshua stated that when they die, they are like the angels in heaven, neither marrying nor giving in marriage. Adam and Eve were given a unique ability that is patterned after God. They were able to procreate. When a baby is born, it is born with a unique soul, personality and individuality before God. This baby will soon be accountable to God for the life that it lives on earth. At the point of death, each person stands before God to stand judgment for his life. There are no second chances.

What makes us unique from the Angels is the fact that we can procreate. We also, just like the angels, will wittingly or unwittingly make the decision as to whether God is our God or not. At death our sentence is finalized. Daniel put it well when he wrote that there will be those who rise to glory, and those who rise to judgment (Dan 12:1-3). The Mormons will be surprised when they get to heaven to find that there are no spirit bodies floating around. Procreation does not start in the heavens, it is exclusively an earthly phenomena born of the union of man and woman. The late Erik Krag made the statement to me years ago that he felt the Angels are sitting in bleachers watching us as an interested crowd. They are waiting to see what decisions we make with our free will. He may be right.

Yeshua pointed out a basic grammatical truth to the Sadducees. God is a God of the living. When YHVH identified Himself in the Old Testament, He spoke of Moses’ father, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the present tense (Ex 3:6). All of these men were still alive just like his father was still alive. If there is no resurrection as the Sadducees taught, then this description of God was false. Yeshua emphasized that they were greatly “planao” or greatly deceived (Mark 12:27).

His teaching focus was not on the credibility of their scenario. His teaching focus touched on the fact that the scenario was built upon a false premise. The truth of life is that God is the God of the living.

Mark 12:28-34  This is the most quoted verse in the Bible! Actually, it is the most quoted verse is found in Torah (Deut 6:4-6). The Jewish people quote this verse at every gathering, and some quote it up to three times daily when they do their standing prayer. This prayer is titled after the first word “sh’ma” or as is commonly written, “The Shema”. Jesus adds to it a command to love your neighbor as yourself (Lev 19:18). Matthew expounds with the quote that these two commands are the basis of Torah and of the writings of the prophets (Matt 22:40). What are we as Christians missing? If these two commands are so vitally important, why aren’t we quoting them?

The scribe that was asking the question in this passage is interesting. He was the genuine article. His question was from the heart. Notice the tone change with Yeshua. His answer is gentle and straight forward. His answer was that the greatest commandment was to turn to the basis of Torah. The scribe validated the answer by quoting further into the instructions of Torah (Deut 4:35; 6:5; 1 Sam 15:22; Hos 6:6; Micah 6:6). He demonstrated an understanding that encompassed Torah and the Prophets.

Yeshua said that the scribe was not far from the kingdom of God. We have discussed the idea of the kingdom of God through several passages. In a nutshell, it is not a celestial kingdom that is in the afterlife, although it does include this kingdom. The Kingdom of God is the kingdom of believers who live and dwell on the earth. When Yeshua stated that the scribe was not far away, Yeshua was stating that he was close to understanding what Jesus had been teaching all along. He was very close to becoming a disciple.

There is a fine line to cross where skeptical people become believers. It is sometimes the case that the skeptic will investigate the Words of our Messiah and find them to be valid. Once this takes place the skeptic will make a decision to either walk away from the knowledge or take personal responsibility by embracing the Messiah. There is a vast multitude of people who do not buy truth simply because it sounds right. The scribe for example heard about Jesus, investigated His teaching and then interacted with the teaching. He was very close to joining Jesus and walking with Him.

If we consider the idea of closeness, let’s look at how Paul built upon this idea. He stated that there are several who build upon the foundation of Messiah when discipling believers (1 Cor 3:5-10).  Later he stated that each believer is a letter to be read by all men testifying about the Messiah (2 Cor 3:1-3). When God starts building upon His foundation, He develops the believer from curiosity to a follower.

The religious leaders were familiar with discipleship. They sat under teachers to learn about Torah. To reach their position of leadership meant that they had undergone intense instruction. It also meant that they haggled over their ideas to justify standing with the Scribes or Pharisees. They embraced scriptures, arguments, and ideas and defended their positions. Yeshua stated that the scribe was close to His Kingdom. In their view, Jesus was saying that the scribe was close to changing his position to join Jesus.

Today we see many different denominations in the Christian church. In most cases people are born into their denomination. Sometimes people will switch denominations because of moving to different communities. There are some who will change denominations because of doctrinal issues or belief changes. Ministers will follow the same pattern. Often the minister will be groomed from childhood and stay in his denomination as a faithful follower of familiar doctrines. The point of this is simple. We, as Christians, move into our belief systems because of the community of believers that we surround ourselves with.

The Jewish people were radically different. They were Jews. Different denominations did not exist. Therefore, they could make lateral moves from one sect to another as they weighed and challenged ideas. Those who accepted the challenge of leadership vested themselves into careful study of the scriptures. This meant considering a large variety of ideas and embracing one set that they felt was the most correct. Movement from being a scribe to becoming a disciple was not a large stretch.

Yeshua was a Jew. He was recognized as a Jew. The religious leaders were hostile toward Him because His teachings challenged the fabric of their teachings. It was not so much a different as in foreign teaching that would cause one to abandon Judaism. Jesus was not teaching a different Gospel. He was teaching Torah. What made Him dangerous was His constant declaration and insinuation that He was the Great I AM in the flesh. This was validated by signs and wonders. It was further validated by a radical pure teaching of Torah that returned to the roots of the instructions of God. Careful study of the Gospels reveals one truth. Jesus taught written Torah exclusively. He did not teach from the Rabbi’s, He challenged Oral Torah on every turn. Jesus was seen as a danger to Oral Torah. He was also seen as a danger because He obviously believed that He was God in the flesh.

When Yeshua stated that the scribe was not far from the Kingdom of God, it meant simply that he was not far from being welcomed into the community of believers that Yeshua was leading. The religious leaders did not want to enter into that group in any way. They were trying to trap Jesus with doctrine and realized that His teaching was drawing them closer to Torah.

Mark 12:35-37 Yeshua changes the subject. They were dancing around the idea of the Messiah with the questions that were targeted at Him. Yeshua takes their unspoken question and brings it to the front of the discussion. Psalm 110 is a very short psalm which looks at the Messiah when He begins to reign in the earthly kingdom. David used two words for Lord which do not translate well into English. The great minds of translators were unable to address this situation since they translate the name of God “YHVH” as Lord and another name of God “Adonai” as Lord. David stated, “YHVH says to Adonai”.

Yeshua asked a question that equalizes the two terms. YHVH and Adonai in His question are both equalized as the Greek word “kurio”. The question simply asks, if David’s Son is called “Adonai”, how can he be David’s son? Outside of God becoming flesh, this is impossible to answer. Jesus, through the human lineage of David’s DNA also had the DNA of God. He was the God-man that answers the riddle. The question stumped the Scribes and entertained the crowds.

Mark 12:38-40 We mentioned the Amidah earlier when referring to the “Standing Prayer” (Mark 11:25). This prayer is quite a chore to pray. It includes several segments that are quite long. Then the Rabbi’s had a practice of adding a section on the end of the prayer that was their personal own. Some think that the “Our Father” was requested by the disciples for this purpose (Matt 6:5-15; Lk 11:1-4). It is interesting that Mark does not include this prayer. Perhaps this was because Peter was stung pretty bad by his denial of the Messiah. He may have avoided the religious sense because he realized the fallibility of man. Remember, Peter is thought to have dictated this Gospel to Mark.

The remaining observations regarding the scribes enhances this idea. The characteristics of being the center of focus that are described in these verses brings the focus on the men instead of on God. Peter had his share of allowing this focus. Yeshua warned against it. Then he added an additional statement. Those who claim to be religious and expect others to look up to them will stand a greater judgment for their actions.

In regard to widows: Perhaps this note helps clarify it:

“These scribes devour widows’ houses. People often left their whole fortunes to the Temple, and a good part of the money went finally to the scribes and Pharisees. The scribes were employed to make out wills and conveyances of property. They inveigled widows to give their homes to the Temple, and then took the proceeds of the sale for themselves. In order to do this, they offered long prayers in the homes of these widows and for them. Thus, they bent the widows to their will. Our Lord calls these prayers, a pretence. They could not be true prayers when offered with such an ulterior purpose. Swete says: “Men who rob widows, and use prayer as a means of securing opportunities for committing a crime, shall receive a sentence in excess of that which falls to the lot of the dishonest man who makes no pretence to piety; to the sentence of the robber will be added in their case the sentence on the hypocrite.”[i]

The other side of the widow coin is more astounding. The widow has always been a protected person according to Torah. Any mistreatment of the widow is a grave violation of the instructions of Torah (Deut 10:18; 14:29; 16:11, 14; 24:17; 27:19 and many more). There are many places in the scriptures where God gives specific instructions regarding widows. Many of the judgments that come on nations and on the Jewish people is when they neglect or mistreat the widows (Jer 22:3; Mal 3:5).

Mark 12:41-44  The Widows Mite. I am going to hit three possibilities for this section. In previous studies I taught this woman as a frugal person who gave her last cent to the treasury. The message may be deeper than that. It is certainly a powerful message regarding tithe and offerings. This woman gave all that she had compared to the rich people that gave from their abundance. As mentioned above, the widow is the litmus test of Torah.

Remember context though. The rich people in context may represent the scribes and teachers (Mark 12:38-40). Their wisdom and abundant knowledge of Torah placed them in places where they were abundantly rich compared to the common people. They had access to the Torah scrolls and all the resources of the Temple. The common people had access to the teachers. In a spiritual sense, the common people were given a few coins to live on in comparison to the abundant spiritual riches that the scribes had available. Personal responsibility comes into play in this scenario. The common person made full use  of the limited Torah that came their way. While the spiritually rich gave little in comparison to their abundant resources. In the previous verses the scribes were acting as wealthy men who demanded the best seats and the most attention.

The danger of spiritualizing a passage is that it opens up the passage for greater critique and the possibility of nitpicking the scenario. Therefore, I am going to leave this thought as simply a thought.  It could be that Yeshua was simply observing the widow who placed her last coins in the treasury. She will be an example of giving to all believers forever. On the other hand, this could also be a statement of shame on the religious leaders of the day. They had abundant riches and only gave a pittance to the people they led.

The last thought on the widow’s mite is to reflect back on the holiday that was coming up. They were moving up to the Passover celebration. It is possible that this was the day prior to the Passover or even on that same day. Remember, Passover is a meal, it occurs in the evening. The Feast of Unleavened Bread is an eight-day festival where yeast is removed from the house. One of the requirements of this feast is that no one is show up empty-handed (Ex 23:15). Therefore, this woman was so faithful to God’s instruction that she put her last two cents into the treasury. Could she have put her money in a day early? It gets a bit tricky when figuring out the actual date for the Last Supper.  There was a tradition in place where a Passover Seder took place on the evening prior to the slaughtering of the lambs on Passover day. There was in effect a Passover meal, then the sacrificial offerings. The giving of the widow’s mite would work either way that you date it. This woman went to the Temple on the day of Nisan 14 so that she could put her offering in the treasury since the first day of unleavened bread landed on Nisan 15 in conjunction with the Passover meal (Lev 13:5-6). When she started the Feast of Unleavened Bread, she started it with a clear conscience knowing that she gave her last two cents in the offering. Her “yeast” of worldly riches had been removed from her house. Now she was ready to worship the Lord.

Thanks for reading,

Joe Turner

^[1] Gerhard Kittel, Gerhard Friedrich, and Geoffrey William Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 1985), 859.

[i] Wuest, Kenneth S. Wuest’s Word Studies from the Greek New Testament : For the English Reader, Mk 12:38. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997, c1984.