Note: Jesus has arrived in Jerusalem to a hero’s welcome (Mark 11:1-11). But Jesus has come to Jerusalem to die as a ransom for many (10:45). After clearing the temple (11:12-19) he is tested by the religious leaders (11:27-33). Chapter 12 features his final confrontation with his rivals.
1. Who do the servants, the beloved son, and the tenants in the parable represent?
2. What is so provocative about the parable?
Note: The Pharisees and the Herodians generally were enemies. However, Jesus has brought reconciliation to their relationship!
3. How might Jesus’ answer to the question land him in trouble?
4. Should Christians pay taxes? Why or why not? (cf. Rom 13:6)
5. What should be rendered to God? Why?
Note: The Sadducees were a priestly party in Judaism who rejected the doctrine of the general resurrection from the dead (so they were sad, you see!) and only accepted the first five books of the Old Testament.
6. Why are the Sadducees mistaken?
7. What was the reason this teacher of the law asked Jesus this question?
8. What are the greatest commandments?
9. What is the result of Jesus’ answer of this commandment?
Stop and pray that God enable us to do what he commands.
10. What is the point of showing that the Son of David is greater than David?
11. What is notable about the giving of the rich?
12. What is disturbing about the widow’s giving?
Stop and pray that God makes us humble, content, and generous.
13. At the start of Mark chapter 12 we saw that Jesus was subjected to vigorous questioning. What is the situation by the end of the chapter? What does this say about Jesus?
Have you ever been in a conversation, debate, or even perhaps—dare I say it—an argument, where you walk away saying, “Boy, why didn’t I say that?” Have you ever been questioned and caught out? And then you kind of stand there stunned, like a kangaroo caught in the headlights of an oncoming truck, just standing there, shocked, until the inevitable flattening.
Few of us are quick-witted enough to have that quick answer, the witty repartee, the ability to silence critics.
Have you ever seen the late Robyn Williams interviewed? He is almost better than his movies. He is so fast, making all these logical links. There are legendary interviews with Jana Wendt and Michael Parkinson. There’s no swearing, just quick witted hilarious answers that silence the interviewers with laughter, unable to ask any more question. He is just left talking, the master answerer of questions.
Well, that is the Jesus we see in Mark 12. He answers questions, he silences foes, and then in the stunned silence, he asks the questions, and sets the agenda.
To take in the whole panorama, we really go back to Mark chapter 11 verses 27-33. Jesus is re-entering the temple that he has just cleared out and cleaned up. And that is where the delegation meets him and the questioning starts. The delegation is of chief priests, teachers of the law, and scribes. It’s really the bishops, archdeacons, and Moore College lecturers coming round to ask a few questions. These were the key factions in what was called the Sanhedrin, the Jewish governing council. They are the religious heavyweights. What they said went for a long time. And then Jesus started upsetting the apple cart and overturning tables. And basically they challenge him with “Who said you could do all this?” Verse 28, “By what authority are you doing these things?” Where is your right to act this way.
Well, Jesus doesn’t have to answer in the end, for he silences their question with his question. Now, Jesus here is not just a clever politician getting out of answering the question. He is not like a minister during question time in Federal Parliament. Do you notice that whenever the opposition asks the question, the government never really answers it? They just talk about what they want, mostly blaming the opposition that whatever they are upset about was actually their fault when they were in government the last time.
Jesus is not doing that. Jesus will actually answer their question, in the parable of the tenants (Mark 12:1-12). But Jesus wants to point out here that whatever he says, whatever answer he gives, makes no difference. They will reject his authority just as they rejected John the Baptist before him. That is what they always do.
In the parable of the tenants, Jesus basically says, “Here is your answer: I am God’s Son. I am from God. I have come to my inheritance, to Jerusalem my city as the Son of David, and to the temple, my Father’s house. I have come to the vineyard, Israel, that my Father planted (Isa 51:1-2). And because of your jealousy and covetousness, you religious leaders will kill me and throw me out.”
Jesus has come to Jerusalem to die. And Jesus is saying to the religious leaders, “You are the ‘tenants from hell’. You never pay rent. You abuse and mistreat those with the misfortune of having to collect your arrears. And you want what is not yours.”
Here, Jesus is reminding the religious leaders of Israel’s rejection of the prophets. What did their fathers do? They didn’t receive God’s messengers. They never have. They kill the prophets and stone those sent to them.
And then Jesus gets more pointed, more inflammatory, for now the only Son and heir has come. The Son possesses legal rights over the Vineyard. He comes with his father’s authority. The Son is, in fact, an expression of the father’s compassion. He had one left to send, a son, whom he loved (v. 6). And look what you are going to do. You want to kill him. You will kill him. This is what the world does. It wants to rid itself of God, and his Son, Jesus Christ.
But there will be a day of reckoning for these religious leaders. Verse 9:
What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others. (NIV)
In other words, Jesus warns them of God’s wrathful and angry judgment. You will kill me, yes, says Jesus. But you religious leaders also will face God’s wrath and angry judgement. The owner will kill the tenants, and that which they coveted will be given to others. You can see why the Sanhedrin hated Jesus and wanted him dead.
But the death of the Son does not mean that the owner has lost control. No, God is very much in control. God’s purpose will be accomplished through the death of the Son and his humiliation and seeming defeat. The rejection and death of the Christ was written long ago. And God will use it for good. Verse 12:
The Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes. (NIV)
So the religious leaders’ full frontal assault on Jesus’ authority hasn’t worked. They have been silenced.
But they haven’t given up just yet. They adopt a new strategy. They go off in their little factions. They split up in small groups—focus groups is the new term—and after their deliberations and consultations they come back to Jesus for another go. First come the Pharisees, then the Sadducees, then the teachers of the law or scribes, all wanting to try their own unique angle on Jesus, to find a weakness, a chink in the armour.
The first group is an interesting alliance—the Pharisees with the Herodians. Now this is an odd couple, an unlikely coalition. Ever since Chapter 3 verse 6, we have heard of this somewhat unholy alliance. Isn’t it beautiful how Jesus brings people together? For they have only come together to kill him.
Their intention is clear: verse 13, “to catch him in his words”. And their approach to Jesus is full of flattery, hypocrisy, and irony: flattery, because they are praising him; hypocrisy, because they don’t believe it; and irony, because the things they say are true, and because if they believed they were true, they wouldn’t be testing Jesus like this. Verse 14:
They came to him and said, “Teacher, we know you are a man of integrity. You aren’t swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are [then why are they trying to flatter him like this?] but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth [Then why don’t they believe him? Here is hypocrisy, of which Jesus was well aware. And then here comes the test] Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not? [Should we pay or shouldn’t we?]
Ah, what a juicy dilemma we’ve thought of for Jesus! Damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t. He will either support the taxation, and be discredited in the eyes of the people, or else he will refuse to pay, and bring the might of Rome upon himself.
But Jesus refuses to be cornered into either position. The dilemma, is in, fact, a false one. Jesus asks for a coin. It is interesting that Jesus doesn’t have one, but they do! The coin is a denarius. Apparently, on one side it carried a bust of Tiberius Caesar which said, “Tiberius Caesar Augustus, Son of the Divine Augustus”. He obviously thinks himself very special, doesn’t he? On the other side, the denarius bore an image of Caesar’s mother with the words “Pontifex Maximus”, meaning ‘High Priest’. This is a title I note that the Pope has taken for himself for many centuries, even though the title “universal pontiff” was rejected by early popes.[1]
The coin has Caesar’s portrait on it. Literally, it has his ‘image’ on it. The coin is made in Caesar’s image. It has his inscription, and claims that Caesar is a god. So in verse 17, Jesus effectively says, ‘Look its got his picture on it—it is made in his image, so give it back to him. It is Caesar’s. Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and give to God what is God’s.”
Here, Jesus does two things. First, he acknowledges the obligation to pay tax. Our money bears the symbols of our commonwealth. Thus, it is our Christian duty to pay what we owe. As Paul says, “This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honour, then honour.” (Romans 13:6-7 NIV)
But second, Jesus points to a bigger obligation. The coin is made in Caesar’s image, so give it to him. But whatever bears God’s image, well, God is owed that, too. And who is made in the image of God? What bears God’s image? It’s us. We belong to God. We are made in his image. God made us and so owns us. And we Christians have another reason. We are bought with a price. We belong to God through Jesus death. So give to God what is God’s—give him yourself.
It is a bit like tag-team wrestling, because then it is as if the Sadducee’s said, “OK, you Pharisees had your go, now it’s our turn”. The Sadducees were the upper class Jews, related to the priesthood. They accepted only the first five books of the Old Testament. We read that the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, hence the old joke, “so they were sad, you see!” These two errors of the Sadducees—rejection of much of the Old Testament, and rejection of the resurrection, were mutually reinforcing, partly because they rejected prophets like Daniel, David, Ezekiel, and Isaiah, who testified to the resurrection (Isa 26:19, 53:11; Ezek 37; Dan 12:2, Pss 16:10, 73:24). They also didn’t believe that angels and demons existed.
The Sadducees rejection of the resurrection brings them into direct conflict with Jesus, for he had repeatedly said that he will rise again from the dead (Mark 8:31, 9:31, 10:34). And if there is no resurrection, Jesus will not be raised either.
Undoubtedly, the Sadducees think themselves very clever, because they latch onto a law Moses gave to test Jesus. Moses commanded a man to marry his brother’s widow to preserve the family property and his brother’s name (Deut 25:5-6; cf. Gen 38:8). In the circumstances of ancient Israel, this was a good law, but the Sadducees want to run a reductio ad absurdum argument based on it. They want to run out the position according to its logical conclusion. Surely, think the Sadducees, there is no resurrection, because if it were true, the new heaven and earth would be such a mess, and no-one would know who actually is married to who.
But the Sadducees argument is in error because of their wrong assumptions, and Jesus points out two reasons which have led them to their error: in verse 24, Jesus points out that they don’t know Scripture, and they don’t know God’s power.
Jesus takes them to a Scripture within the first five books, which they do accept. When God spoke to Moses at the burning bush, he revealed himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Exod 3:6). God entered into a relationship with them. And so as far as God is concerned, they are alive. They are alive to God, because they are with God, and God will raise their bodies from the earth and give them new resurrection bodies. That’s their first mistake.
Friends, there are many modern-day Sadducees, around, aren’t there? The Sadducee spirit says, “I believe hell is in this life”, and “after you die, you just go into the ground, or get cremated, and that’s it”, and “who knows whether there is life after death—no-one has come back to tell us, after all, have they?” It’s boring to have to say that there are even Anglican Bishops who agree with the Sadducees. But it is wonderful to say that Jesus is the resurrection and the life. He who believes in him will live though he dies, and whoever lives and believes in him will never die (John 11:25-26).
The second mistake is that Sadducees also misunderstand the kingdom of heaven—probably because they don’t believe in it. Jesus tells them that there is no marriage in heaven—for our human marriages are for this world only—except for one marriage that will be contracted and celebrated, the wedding of Christ at the wedding supper of the lamb, when Jesus will take his wife, the church, as a bride beautifully prepared for him (Rev 21:1ff.).
So the Pharisees have had their go, then the Sadducees. Now the scribes, the teachers of the law, have their go. But by now, the climate has changed. One scribe hears Jesus, and notices that Jesus had given a good answer. He has perhaps been won over. This teacher of the law approaches Jesus sincerely, without malice, but with sincerity, and he asks his question, it would seem, to learn, and not to trap. His question is “Teacher, what is the most important commandment?”
The scribe asks for one commandment, but Jesus gives him two—a two for one deal. Both come from the Old Testament and so they pre-existed Jesus’ ministry and were part of the words of God entrusted to the Jews (Deut 6:4-5; Lev 19:18).
Now these two commandments to us are commonplace. We know these two greatest commandments from the service of Morning Prayer. But when Jesus put them together, it was a radical new insight.
Our first obligation is towards God: “Love the LORD your God from all your heart, soul, mind, and strength.” It is a command to love from the center of our being, with every facet of our existence. Our second obligation is towards each other: “Love your neighbour as yourself.” It is a command to love others as we would have them love us.
Notice that we are not commanded to love our neighbour with all our heart soul, mind, and strength. That is idolatry, worshiping something that is not God as God. Only God deserves that love. And notice that we are not called to love God as we love ourselves. That too is idolatry, serving a god that only exits in our minds and who we are creating in our own image. No, we don’t love God as we would like to be loved. We love God with every facet of our being as he directs us to love him. And we love our neighbour as ourselves, using the way we want to be treated as a yardstick for us.
Notice, too, that the command to love our neighbour is not a command to love ourselves. The bible assumes that we already do that. It is a command to be other person centered, to be outward looking.
And the two commands are distinct, but not separable. John says, “If anyone says ‘I love God’, yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. And he has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother.” (1 John 4:20-21 NIV)
Jesus’ answer has impressed the scribe. The scribe judges that Jesus has spoken well and right. But, in the end, the scribe does not judge Jesus, but Jesus judges the scribe. Verse 34, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.”
Here is no mere teacher. Here is the Son of the kingdom of heaven, with authority to admit into the kingdom, and the ability to say whether someone is near or far from it.
Now, are these words of comfort for the scribe? They are certainly better than, “You are badly mistaken” or “Why are trying to trap me”. Not far is better than far. But near is not here. He hasn’t made it into the kingdom, even though he is not far from it.
It may be that Jesus is saying, “You have not far to go to understand about salvation”, but perhaps Jesus is saying, “You have come close to the kingdom, because I am the king, the one to whom you speak.”
And with his judgment on the scribe, Jesus silences all his would-be questioners. So the floor now belongs to Jesus. He has free reign to speak of what he will. It is Jesus’ turn to set the agenda.
And so Jesus starts by speaking on one of his favorite topics— himself. Verse 35:
How is it that the teachers of the law say that the Christ is the son of David? David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared: ‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.”
Here is a quote from Psalm 110. This the Old Testament Scripture that is most quoted in the New Testament, obviously because Jesus quoted it so much.
Most people understood the Messiah only as the ‘Son of David’. Thus blind Bartimaeus in Mark chapter 10 calls Jesus ‘Son of David’ (Mark 10:47-48). And the crowds during the triumphal entry shout, “Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David” (Mark 11:10). In one sense, it is true to say that the Messiah is the Son of David. But by itself it is inadequate. Jesus has already hinted at this in the parable of the vineyard, that he himself is the son of the vineyard owner, and not just one of the servants. But we readers of Mark’s Gospel know more. Twice previously, at his baptism, and at the transfiguration, a voice from heaven said of Jesus, “This is my Son, whom I love” (Mark 1:11, 9:7). And even King David calls the Messiah ‘Lord’. The Messiah, you see, is God’s Son.
Jesus has spoken of himself. But his last words on this day, before he leaves the temple for the last time, will be about those in the temple.
He first takes note of the teachers of the law, the scribes. He has just had a positive conversation with one of them. But now he will unleash his criticism of them as a class. And essentially, they are show offs who love the praise of men, and use religion as an excuse for greed. They love their flowing robes, and they make lengthy prayers for a show. There’s a warning for us in Anglican ministry! They devour widow’s houses. They prey on the weak. Lord, save us from such avarice and greed. For Christ says, they will be punished most severely. But there is a widow, who is not rich, but is strong in faith. Verse 42:
But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny. (NIV)
This is an unimpressive gift, at first, that will not pay any of the temple bills. But Jesus is impressed. Verses 43-44:
43Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44They gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on [literally, ‘her whole life’].”
For Jesus, the gift is valuable not because of the amount, but because of the cost to the giver. Friends, in Jesus’ sight, it is not the amount of the gift, but it is our sacrifice in giving it. Here, the poorest is the most generous. And the things that appear to be a great gift may in Jesus’ sight be only a little compared to what one could give. Others gave what they could spare, but this woman spared nothing. As Paul says, the gift is acceptable according to what one has, not according to what he does not have (2 Cor 8:12).
So Jesus calls over his disciples, so that they might come and be disturbed, because this story is not just about giving money, but about discipleship. Come and be disturbed by a woman who literally gives her whole life to God. She cannot do much else, but what she is able, she has done.
Friends, we mustn’t think, “I can never be as generous as this woman. I can never give my whole life.” You and I can! It’s called, ‘becoming a Christian!’ You are not asked to give what you do not have. You are only asked to give what you have—everything, your whole life. And you are only giving to God what is God’s, that which God made in his image.
Dear friends, this woman’s example calls us also to give our lives to God, which includes the money we have, but not the money we don’t have. So what she gave, we also can give. Jesus said, “What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul” (Mark 9:36).
Let us learn, dear friends, that it is more blessed to give than to receive.
Amen.
[1] The Montanist Tertullian applied it sarcastically around AD 220 against a bishop with whom he was at odds, probably Pope Callixtus: ‘the “Pontifex Maximus”, that is the “bishop of bishops” issues an edict’ (Tertullian, On Modesty, ch 1). More importantly, Pope Gregory I ‘the Great’ (AD 590-604) reproached Patriarch John the Faster, the bishop of Constantinople, for calling himself the universal bishop, a title that previous bishops of Rome had been offered and rejected: “Was it not the case, as your Fraternity knows, that the prelates of this Apostolic See, which by the providence of God I serve, had the honour offered them of being called Universal by the venerable Council of Chalcedon. But yet not one of them has ever wished to be called by such a title, or seized upon this ill-advised name, lest if, in virtue of the rank of pontificate, he took to himself the glory of singularity, he might seem to have denied it to all his brethren.” (Gregory the Great, Epistles, Book 5, Epistle 18 NPNF2 Vol 12, ‘Leo the Great, Gregory the Great’, 167). Again, “I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop (‘sacerdos universalis’) is the precursor of Antichrist” (Epistles 7:33, quoted in Calvin, Institutes IV.7.4 [Battles 2:1122]).