 |
 |
||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
The Gospel of Mark
|
BIBLE STUDY MARK 12:1-44 REVIEW: Chapter 11 began with Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem. His acquisition of a never-been-ridden donkey would have been a familiar image taken from the Old Testament. It is possible that Jesus’ entry was well thought-out for its symbolic significance. His entrance was “triumphant” yet “humble.” It would have reminded the people of Zech 9:9-10, the entrance of a king, the entrance of the Messiah! The people in Jerusalem, however, misunderstood Jesus’ dramatization. Their spreading of cloaks on the ground and their use of Psalm 118, “a conqueror’s psalm,” illustrates their interest not in a peaceful Messiah, but a conquering Lord such as Jehu (2 Kings 9). Unlike Matthew and Luke, Mark does not have Jesus immediately enter the temple to cleanse it. Rather, it says he “looked at everything” giving the impression that his later actions to “cleanse” the temple are, again, well thought-out and planned for their symbolic meaning. It is likely that Jesus planned his return to the temple in order to fulfill the prophecy of Malachi 3:1-4, that the Lord “will suddenly come to his temple” in order to purify the descendants of Levi…”until they present offerings to the Lord in righteousness.” Chapter 11 also includes the story of Jesus cursing the fig tree. With this act, Jesus seems to be making a point—that the purpose of Israel (or perhaps the temple cult) is to bear fruit. If it does not, it will face God’s judgment. Chapter 11 concludes with yet another discussion concerning Jesus’ identity. This time, the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders approach him trying to challenge his authority. Jesus shows himself to be a skillful debater by challenging them to describe the authority behind John the Baptist. Of course, these religious “authorities” are unwilling or unable to acknowledge the power of God behind the life and mission of both John the Baptist and Jesus. This is, however, the answer to the question about Jesus identity. According to Mark, both John and Jesus are doing the work of God among the people with power that can only come from heaven. CHAPTER 12:1-12 “The Parable of Wicked Tenants” “Then he began to speak to them in parables. “A man planted a vineyard, put a fence around it, dug a pit for the wine press, and built a watchtower; then he leased it to tenants and went to another country. When the season came, he sent a slave to the tenants to collect from them his share of the produce of the vineyard. But they seized him, and beat him, and sent him away empty-handed. And again he sent another slave to them; this one they beat over the head and insulted. Then he sent another, and that one they killed. And so it was with many others; some the beat, and others they killed. He had still one other, a beloved son. Finally he sent him to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ But those tenants said to one another, ‘This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’ So they seized him, killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard. What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the tenants and give the vineyard to others. Have you not read this scripture: The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; This was the Lord’s doing, and it is amazing in our eyes’?” When they realized that he had told this parable against them, they wanted to arrest him, but they feared the crowd. So they left him and went away.” This section is the continuation of the very public conversation in the temple between Jesus and the chief priests, scribes and elders. Looking back to Mark 11:27-33, we see that these religious rulers had confronted Jesus asking him, “By what authority are you doing these things?” and “Who gave you this authority to do them?” We have already seen how the religious rulers became afraid of the crowd when Jesus invited them to refute the heavenly authority of John the Baptist. Now, with this parable about tenant farmers, heedless of the obvious danger of shaming such powerful people, Jesus gives them public and pointed criticism. The opening of the parable evokes the song of the vineyard in Isaiah 5:1-7 as a symbol for Israel (“the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel,” Isa 5:7). The situation described within the parable would have resonated well with the people of Jesus’ time, as it was extremely common for absentee landowners to lease their land to local farmers in return for a large share of the profits. The symbols in the parable are fairly straight forward and clear: The vineyard itself is Israel; The tenant farmers are Israel’s leaders (to whom Jesus is speaking); The servants, some abused and some killed by the tenants, are obviously the biblical prophets, especially in their role of confronting the religious and political leaders of Israel; The word “fruit” is a common biblical term for material/moral/spiritual results; The land owner and the land owner’s son are obviously symbolic of God and Jesus—the son of God. At verse 7 we see Jesus’ characterizes Israel’s leaders as being entirely self motivated, covetous, and willing to kill in order to usurp the “inheritance” (which is really God’s own place). “Come, let us kill him,” is the same sentence as the Greek (LXX) version of Gen 37:20. It parallels what Joseph’s brothers plan to do to him, before they decide to sell him into slavery. In verse 10 Jesus adds insult to injury by insinuating that the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders aren’t familiar with the scripture, saying, “Have you not read this scripture…” What follows is Psalm 118:22-23, which Jesus cites to interpret his own rejection by the Jewish authorities—“The stone that the builders rejected…” There is a long standing debate over the phrase (usually translated corner stone) literally translated “the head of the corner.” Does it refer to the foundation stone, or the cap stone placed at the top of the building signifying completion? Either way, this stone, once rejected has become essential. This is “the Lord’s doing.” In verse 12 we see once again that these religious authorities were afraid to act in public. There is not necessarily congruence between the leaders and their people. The chief priests, scribes and elders wanted to arrest Jesus but were afraid of the crowd. In this we can understand that the primary audience and subject of this condemning parable were the Jerusalem leadership and not all Jews. CHAPTER 12:13-17 “The Question about Paying Taxes” “Then they sent to him some Pharisees and some Herodians to trap him in what he said. And they came and said to him, “Teacher, we know that you are sincere, and show deference to no one; for you do not regard people with partiality, but teach the way of God in accordance with truth. Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, or not? Should we pay them, or should we not?” But knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, “Why are you putting me to the test? Bring me a denarius and let me see it.” And they brought one. Then he said to them, “Whose head is this, and whose title?” They answered, “The emperor’s.” Jesus said to them, “Give to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they were utterly amazed at him. Having been bested already by Jesus in the temple (in the game of public rhetoric), and recognizing that they were targeted by Jesus’ parable about the tenants, it is presumably the chief priests, scribes and elders, who are now sending to him other Jewish groups to trap him. In this instance they are trying to trap Jesus, by getting him to take sides in their own debate. The Herodians (or the Herodian Dynasty) owed their existence to the support of Roman Empire. They would likely support Roman taxation. The Pharisees, although this is not historically verified, likely opposed the tax. Although they are coming to Jesus to judge the debate, supposedly because of his honesty and impartiality, Jesus apparently recognizes the inherent danger of accepting this role as arbiter between Herodians and Pharisees. Rather than being seduced by their flattery, the narrator makes clear that he knows this to be a trap. Once again, as throughout the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus proves to be a skilled debater—capable of playing the “honor game” of that day—able to defend God’s honor, his group’s honor, and his own honor. The coin Jesus asks his opponents to show him, the denarius, had on it a picture of Caesar, but it also had the inscription “Tiberius Caesar, Augustus, son of divine Augustus.” Such a coin would have been considered an affront to Jewish law (“having no other gods”), and these Pharisees and Herodians would have been shamed publicly for having it in their possession. With his final answer Jesus effectively counters their question with a question of his own. “Who is your God?” By participating in the Roman system (by using his money) the Herodians and Pharisees are participating in the kingdom of Caesar (who claims his own divinity). On the other side of this coin, is a question or accusation…are the Herodians and Pharisees, while participating/contributing to the Roman empire, still giving to God the things that are God’s? Notice here that Jesus does not make any final judgment. He gives the Herodians, the Pharisees and perhaps us (living in the United States of America) the basis for judging for ourselves. Are we rendering unto God the things that are Gods? Are we participating in God’s kingdom? CHAPTER 12:18-27 “The Question about the Resurrection” “Some Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him and asked him a question, saying, “Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies, leaving a wife but no child, the man shall marry the widow and raise up children for his brother. There were seven brothers; the first married and, when he died, left no children; and the second married the widow and died, leaving no children; and the third likewise; none of the seven left children. Last of all the woman herself died. In the resurrection whose wife will she be? For the seven had married her.” Jesus said to them, “Is not this the reason you are wrong, that you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God? For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the story about the bush, how God said to him, “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is God not of the dead, but of the living; you are quite wrong.” Here we have another challenge coming from another group of Jewish people. This time it is the Sadducees, Israel’s official teachers, who are bating Jesus to join in another debate. It would have been well know that the Sadducees and Pharisees were at odds with each other over this issue of resurrection. Only here does he debate with the Sadducees and, although this is not explicitly stated, it seems that here Jesus sides in debate with the Pharisees. The Sadducees argument is based on the idea that the belief in resurrection contradicts the law about levirate marriage in Deuteronomy 25:5-6. According to this law a man has the right and duty to take his deceased brother’s widow as his own wife and raise up offspring from her who will carry on the deceased brother’s name and inheritance. The extreme case of seven brothers marrying one woman is a story produced by the Sadducees intending to ridicule the concept of resurrection. The Sadducees apparently assumed that resurrection life would imply that the new life will be very much like life beforehand, where marriage between husbands and wives is the foundation of cultural order. Interestingly, Jesus does not bring up his own imminent passion and resurrection in this debate with the Sadducees. Rather he uses the Torah, the holy book of Israel, to shame the official teachers of Israel with their lack of knowledge and understanding. The idea that Jesus brings forth in this discussion is that if God identifies himself as the God of the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) long after their death (Exodus 3:6;15), then those same patriarchs must somehow still be alive and enjoying angelic existence with God in heaven. In this case the basis for everlasting life and resurrection itself is in human communion with God. That is to say, rather than tracing hope for an afterlife to human nature (the immortal soul), the text bases the resurrection on the power of God and the covenants made between God and people. Resurrection is a gift from God. Jesus is to become the first and best example of his own teaching. The resurrection of the body is an understanding of life after death that is very much in line with the traditional Jewish concept of the human person. The person is not primarily spiritual or primarily body. The person is both body and soul, and with God’s redemption of humanity he will restore whole people to life—physically as well as spiritually. This is called the resurrection of the body. This is what happened to Jesus in the Gospels. This is what Jesus has been preparing his disciples for with his repeated predictions of his own passion and resurrection. This is the afterlife that we in the Christian faith celebrate and hope for at Easter. CHAPTER 12:28-34 “The First Commandment” “One of the scribes came near and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, he asked him, “Which commandment is the first of all?” Jesus answered, “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one; you shall love the Lord your God will all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” Then the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher; you have truly said that ‘he is one, and besides him there is no other’; 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,’—this is much more important than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.” When Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” After that no one dared to ask him any question.” Since arriving in Jerusalem and cleansing the temple, Jesus has been continuously engaged in debate by the various Jewish groups who have made themselves his opponents. Mark seems to be making this quite clear—that Jesus is being noticed. It has not taken him long to prove himself as a skilled debater with unequaled wisdom (even in Jerusalem). First, the chief priests, scribes and elders find themselves speechless and humiliated in front of the temple crowd (Mark 12:12), then the Pharisees and some Herodians become “utterly amazed” at Jesus’ handling of their questions about taxation (Mark 12:17), and now, impressed by his discussion with the Sadducees regarding the resurrection, another scribe approaches (12:28). By the end of this section we see that these rhetorical challenges have come to an end, for after this one “no one dared to ask him any question.” Jesus had bested them all. The “first” or most important commandment was a common topic in Jewish circles and so this would likely have been a common question to ask a teacher like Jesus. In his answer, Jesus actually quotes two verses from his Bible. To understand what Jesus believes to be the first (most important) commandment, both must be held together, just as Jesus holds them together. 1) “Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one.” The Hebrew imperative singular “hear” provides the title for this phrase—The “Shema.” The Shema, to any Jew, is regarded as the heart of the Torah. To the Jews, this is the first commandment (Deut 6:4). Without this commandment—without hearing about the God of Israel—the one and only God— there is no understanding of rest of the law. Hearing of the God of Israel provides reason why one should love him with all one’s being. There is no loving whom you have not encountered or whom you have not known. The next verse (Deut 6:5) “you shall love the Lord your God…” is what is regarded by Christians as our “First Commandment” (without the Shema). Stated together, as Jesus does, they have much fuller meaning than when stated separately. Jesus here shows where he is very much in line with the Jewish tradition. 2) “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” This verse, also from the Old Testament (Leviticus 19:18b), gives an even fuller definition to the commandment that Jesus says is most important. It is impossible to love God to the exclusion of people. Finally, it seems that this scribe and Jesus are totally on the same page. They agree with each other and they exchange compliments. The scribe seems to draw from this discussion, a further implication, “This [commandment] is much more important than all whole burnt offerings (holocausts) and sacrifices.” Here we have another subtle (or not so subtle) commentary on the temple cult in Jerusalem, which Mark’s Gospel seems to criticize as being held in much higher regard than is warranted by God. CHAPTER 12:35-37 “Delighting the Crowd” “While Jesus was teaching in the temple, he said, “How can the scribes say that the Messiah is the son of David? David himself, by the Holy Spirit, declared, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet.”’ David himself calls him Lord; so how can he be his son?” And the large crowd was listening to him with delight.” Here, in this short narrative, we see how Jesus is fast becoming a popular figure, this time being listened to by a “large crowd.” His argument here assumes that David wrote Psalm 110.1 and that in calling the messiah figured in the Psalm “Lord” the messiah could not be David’s son. The point is that the awaited messiah will be more than a “son of David.” Moreover that he deserves to share in the title “Lord” along with God. CHAPTER 12:38-40 “The Warning about the Scribes” “As he taught, he said, “Beware of the scribes, who like to walk around in long robes, and to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces, and to have the best seats in the synagogues and places of honor at banquets! They devour widows’ houses and for the sake of appearance say long prayers. They will receive the greater condemnation.” Jesus issues a serious and very public negative challenge to the Jerusalem scribes, urging the crowd to be on their guard against them. He begins by challenging their public behavior. He insinuates that the motivation of these scribes, in their dress, the way they are greeted by others, and the seats that they take, is hypocritical. Moreover, he accuses them of taking advantage of the socially vulnerable, notably widows. The implication of this text is twofold. First, it continues to build on the spirit of animosity between Jesus and the Jerusalem religious authorities. This, of course, will be a significant factor in the events that unfold in the chapters ahead. Secondly, this short narrative serves as a warning for Christians of our own day and age. Along with members of the gathered crowd, we try to understand and heed Jesus’ warning. “Beware of the scribes (or the tendency to behave like them).” MARK 12:41-44 “What is More?” “He sat down opposite the treasury, and watched the crowd putting money into the treasury. Many rich people put in large sums. A poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which are worth a penny. Then he called his disciples and said to them, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the treasury. For all of them have contributed out of their abundance; but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, all she had to live on.” Widows are the stereotypical symbol of the exploited and oppressed. The Old Testament often criticizes the neglectful treatment of these women (Deut. 22:22-23; Job 22:9; Ps 94:6; Isa. 1:23). They are also thought to be under God’s special protection (Deut. 10:18; Ps. 68:5; Jer 49:11). It is within this tradition that Jesus first criticizes the scribes for their neglect of widows (12:40), and perhaps with this in mind that Jesus notices this widow. There is a stated contrast between people who “give out of their abundance” and those who “give out of their poverty.” It strikes me (Pastor Josh) that we witness here, in this story, a very sacred moment. By putting her last two coins in the offering, we experience a person putting her last bit of trust in God. For her this is a holy act. For her, the offering represents her faith, her hope and her love of God. Yet, the people “who give from their abundance,” the scribes, can they ever grasp the meaning of this? Can they ever understand the depth of faith required for two small coins to be counted among the rest? Do we see in our own offering plates at church, that giving can be an act of faith-filled devotion to God? -------------------- Joshua W. Magyar, Pella Lutheran Church 418 W. Main Street Sidney, MT 59270
|
||||