Gospel of Mark/Chapter 12:1-17/Commentary

The Gospel of Mark Chapter 12:1-17 12:1 “And He began to speak to them in parables: ‘A man planted a vineyard, and put a wall around it, and dug a vat under the wine press, and built a tower, and rented it out to vine-growers and went on a journey’” Matthew begins this section by noting that Jesus also said, “Listen to another parable” (21:33). “This sounds as though the Sanhedrists tried to leave and that Jesus detained them” (Lenski p. 835). Notice how Jesus had turned the tables upon His opponents. No longer are they questioning Him, but He is questioning and teaching them.

The following story is was not an unusual situation. The detail reflects a condition that actually prevailed in Galilee at Jesus’ time. Much of the land was in the hands of absentee landowners who contracted with tenants on a crop-sharing basis.

The landowner is God. The vineyard represents the privileged status given to the nation of Israel (Isaiah 5:1-7). The vineyard was complete; it was given everything necessary to operate. In like manner, God had given to Israel everything necessary so they could serve Him successfully (Romans 3:1ff; Isaiah 5:4 “What more was there to do for My vineyard that I have not done in it?”) Barclay notes, 1

“The hedge was a thick-set thorn hedge, designed to keep out both the wild boars and the thieves who might steal the grapes. The tower served as a watchtower, from which to watch for thieves when the grapes were ripening; and it served as a lodging for those who were working in the vineyard. The actions of the owner of the vineyard were all quite normal, it was, therefore, very familiar with absentee landlords, who let out their estates. The rent might be paid in money rent, a fixed amount of the fruit or an agreed percentage of the crop.” (p. 289). Israel was hedged or protected, not only by their location (Numbers 23:9), but also by their law (Ephesians 2:14,15).

12:1 “Rented it out to vine-growers”: These vine-growers represent the Jewish nation and especially her rulers (21:41). God is very reasonable. “It tells us of God’s trust in men. The owner of the vineyard entrusted it to the cultivators. He did not even stand over them to exercise a police-like supervision. God pays men the compliment of entrusting them with His work” (Barclay p. 290). Once again, the doctrine of Calvinism, especially Predestination, finds itself at conflict with the Scriptures. If everything is written in stone, then why would God hand over His vineyard to people who would become unfaithful? “And went on a journey”: “God had come down upon Mt. Sinai, given the law, and established the Hebrew nation, after which He had withdrawn. That had indeed been a long time ago; and for four hundred years before the appearance of John the Baptist (He had remained silent)” (McGarvey p. 591). Jackson notes, “The ‘other country’ into which the man journeyed ‘for a long time’ (Luke 20:9) represented Jehovah’s cessation of personal communication with Israel from Sinai to the coming of Christ” (p. 33).

12:2 “And at the harvest time”: Which refers to the state of ripeness that God expected of the Jewish nation. “It tells us of human freedom. The master left the cultivators to do the task, as they liked. God is no tyrannical task-master” (Barclay p. 291). And a vineyard is naturally planted for the fruit that it will yield. “He sent a slave to the vine-growers, in order to receive some of the produce of the vineyard from the vine-growers”

2

12:3-5“And they took him, and beat him, and sent him away empty-handed.

And again He sent another slave, and they wounded him in the head, and treated him shamefully. And He sent another, and that one they killed; and so with many others, beating some, and killing others”: These servants represent the Old Testament prophets whom God had sent to Israel. Many of them had been persecuted by their fellow Israelites (Elijah-1 Kings 19); (Jeremiah-12:20); (Ezekiel-2:6; 20:49); (Amos-7:10-13); (Zechariah-11:12). Jesus often drew parallels between the persecutions of the prophets and the actions being committed by His contemporaries (Matthew 5:12; 23:27). Observe God’s patience. “The master sent messenger after messenger. He did not come with sudden vengeance when one messenger had been abused and ill-treated. He gave the cultivators chance after chance to respond” (Barclay p. 290). See Acts7:52; 2 Kings 17:13; Jeremiah 44:4; Neh. 9:30.

12:6 “He had one more to send, a beloved son; He sent Him last of all to them, saying, ‘They will respect My Son’”: Jesus is not just another servant. He is in a different class from the prophets (Matthew 16:13-16). This is an admission of Jesus’ divine nature. The prophets were “sons”, but not like this “son”. Jesus is the Son of God in a distinct sense, that is, one equal with the Father (Isaiah 9:6; Micah 5:2; John 1:1; 14:9; 20:28; Hebrews 1:8). “This parable contains one of the clearest claims which Jesus ever made to be unique; and to be different from even the greatest of those who went before” (Barclay p. 291). “They will respect My Son”: This statement does not mean that God was ignorant about what would actually happen to His Son, for Jesus had already clearly predicted His rejection (Matthew 16:21-23). Rather, it was a very reasonable expectation and shows the outrageous nature of the vine-growers crime. Any reasonable person, dealing with reasonable people would naturally assume that the son would be respected.

Yet these vine-growers are anything but reasonable. They are evil.

12:7 “But those vine-growers said to one another, ‘This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours!’”: This reveals that those involved in the death of Jesus were not completely ignorant, yet they had stubbornly refused to accept His credentials (Acts 2:22; John 12:37). The Jewish leaders deliberately plotted Jesus’ death, and envy was a major motive behind their plot (Matthew 3

27:18). In the immediate context, the Jewish leaders had challenged the authority of God’s Son (21:23). These vine-growers “had just harshly demanded of the Son that He tell by what authority He did anything in the vineyard” (McGarvey p. 592).

The Jewish leaders deliberately made a decision. They placed their own positions and security ahead of the will of God (John 11:47-50). Jesus’ death was not an accident, it had been plotted by men intent on keeping their own power. Equally clear is that the enemies of Jesus who heard this parable clearly understood who the Son was and who the evil vine-growers where (12:12). “The inheritance will be ours”: The Jewish leaders were already acting like this. They had turned the Temple into what they wanted it to be.

12:8 “And they took Him, and killed him, and threw him out of the vine-yard”: This is another clear prediction of His own death (Matthew 16:21). Jesus was taken out of the city (John 19:17) and He was put to death “without the gate” (Hebrews 13:13). “After two intervening days, the Jews would fulfill this detail by thrusting Jesus outside the walls of Jerusalem and crucifying Him there” (McGarvey p. 593).

12:9 “What will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the vine-growers, and will give the vineyard to others”: This is a clear prediction of what happened to the Jewish rulers and Jerusalem when God brought the Roman Empire in judgment upon them in A.D. 70. When some in the crowd heard this, they responded “May it never be!” (Luke 20:16). Here we learn something.

People may disagree with the standard found in the Bible, but in their actions and interaction with their fellowmen, they admit that the standard is just and right.

12:10 “Have you not even read this Scripture: ‘The stone which the builders rejected, this became the chief corner stone’”: The quotation is from Psalm 118:22. Jesus is the stone, which the builders (the Jewish rulers) rejected (1 Peter 2:4). “This quotation is from the very Psalm from which the multitude had quoted at the triumphal entry. This picture of the Jewish leaders attempting to construct a building (their version of the Kingdom of God), rejecting the cornerstone which is the key to the structure of the whole building” (Foster p. 1132). The cornerstone was the most important stone in the entire structure. “Cornerstones 4

were laid so as to give strength to the two walls with which they were connected” (Jackson p. 35). Others note that the cornerstone determined the angles and lines not only for the foundation but for the rest of the structure as well. It is interesting to note that various religious groups today are making the same mistake that the Jewish rulers made. They are trying to build a relationship with God, or some form of spirituality, without Jesus Christ. Jackson notes, “Jesus Christ, as the chief corner stone, blends together: eternity (John 1:1) and time (John 1:14); deity (Heb. 1:8) and humanity (1 Tim. 3:16); the First covenant and Second (Heb. 10:9); mercy (Eph. 2:4) the justice of God (Romans 3:26); and Jew and Gentile (Eph. 2:16)” (pp. 35-36).

12:11 “This came about from the Lord, and it is marvelous in our eyes?’”: Human rejection would not stop God’s plan. They would reject Jesus and yet He will still end up being the chief corner-stone. He would not be left out—but they would be! Clearly there is a reference to Jesus’ resurrection in this section, for how could the rejected and dead Son become anything again? The rejected stone becomes the head.

12:12 “And they were seeking to seize Him; and yet they feared the multitude; for they understood that He spoke the parable against them. And so they left Him, and went away”: The meaning of the story was obvious—as is most Scripture! Even the determined enemies of God and His truth can immediately understand what the Bible says. Yet observe what this story reveals. It revealed to the Jewish leaders that Jesus knew they were seeking to kill Him. He knew that they would succeed in killing Him. Yet that would not stop Him! In addition, He exposed the real motive behind their opposing Him. Greed!

This apparently ends the third day of Jesus in Jerusalem during the final week of His life. Most feel that Mark 12:13ff takes place on the next day.

The Question Concerning Paying Taxes to Caesar 12:13 “And they sent”: “Perceiving that Jesus, when on His guard, was too wise for them, the Pharisees thought it best to speak their cunning through the mouths of their young disciples, whose youth and apparent desire to know the truth 5

would, according to their calculation, take Jesus off his His guard” (McGarvey p.

597). “Bested at their own game of ‘embarrassing questions’ they beat a hasty retreat (Mark 12:12) to seek advice from fellow Sanhedrinists on further strategy against the Galilean” (Fowler p. 196).

12:13 “Some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Him, in order to trap Him in a statement”: “Having no ancient statement giving us the tenets or principles of the Herodians, we are left to judge them solely by their name, which shows that they were partisans of Herod Antipas. Whether they were out-and-out supporters of the Roman government, or whether they clung to Herod as one whose intervening sovereignty saved them from the worse fate of being directly under a Roman procurator” (McGarvey p. 597). “The Herodians were as obnoxious to the Pharisees on political grounds as the Sadducees were on theological grounds. Yet the two groups united in their opposition to Jesus. Collaboration in wickedness, as well as goodness, had great power” (Gaebelein p. 733). Observe how these men are willing to compromise so many of their cherished principles just to entrap Jesus. They are willing to cooperate and work with people that they consider ungody.

12:14 “And they came and said to Him, ‘Teacheer, we know that You are truthful, and defer to no one; for You are not partial to any, but teach the way of God in truth”: A fearless loyalty to the truth is a most admirable quality, but these sinners were endeavoring to employ Jesus’ impartiality as an instrument for His own destruction. The above verse is true, Jesus did teach God’s truth and was impartial, but the motivation behind the above statement was insincere.

“This new strategy stands in contrast with the authorities’ earlier attack. There they had challenged His authority from their position of official dignity. Here they pretend to bow humbly to His authority, trusting His integrity. But this is escalation, not retreat, because few are the men who, while courageously and ably defending their position against all assailants, can withstand the subtler danger of warm praise. They hoped to disarm Jesus Himself in the process” (Fowler p. 198).

6

“The meaning of their preface is this: ‘We see that neither fear nor respect for the Pharisees or the rulers prevents you from speaking the plain, disagreeable truth; and we are persuaded that your courage and love of truth will lead you to speak the same way in political matters, and that you will not be deterred there from by any fear or reverence for Caesar’” (McGarvey p. 598).

Luke observes that such men were “pretending to be righteous” (20:20), and that the purpose of the entire question was to get Jesus in trouble with the Roman governor.

12:14 “Is it lawful to pay a poll-tax to Caesar, or not?”: In question was a poll tax to be paid to the imperial treasury, instituted in Judea when Archelaus, son of Herod the Great, was deposed in A.D. 6. The tax was on denarius per person, which was not excessive, but to the Jewish people it was galling because it was a tax paid to a foreign power. Moreover, many Jews were unsure whether or not this was pleasing to God. About twenty years before this Judas of Galilee had stirred up the people to resist this tribute. “To decide in favor of this tribute was therefore to alienate the affection and confidence of the throng in the temple who stood listening to Him—an end most desirable to the Pharisees” (McGarvey p. 598).

Besides Judas, there are arisen other religious patriots at various intervals who fomented political revolution. They preached a holy war against the pagans as God’s will. Engaging in terrorist activities, they sowed terror in the land. Their war cry was “No King but Jehovah!” No Law but the Torah!” See Josephus Antiquities XVIII, 1,1,6; Wars, II, 8,1.

“One of the great ironies of Jewish history especially in this context is that around 4 B.C., the Jews sent their best ambassadors to plead with Caesar to establish Roman government over them in decided preference to the semi-Jewish Herodian rule. And if they had requested it, should they not also pay for it?” (Fowler p.

201).

“The pragmatic Romans did not concern themselves with the religious questions of a subject people so long as that nation behaved itself and paid its taxes (Acts 7

18:15f). But to declare in favor of non-payment of Roman tribute is an audacious declaration of independence, hence a treasonable offense against Rome. The Jewish leadership was so confident that this accusation would move Pilate that they falsely accused Jesus of declaiming against the tax (Luke 23:1)” (Fowler pp.

201-202).

12:15 “Shall we pay, or shall we not pay? But He, knowing their hypocrisy”: That is Jesus knew precisely what was going on. What they had said about Him in 12:14 is not how they really felt. They were pretending to want a truthful answer.

They were pretending that they respected His wisdom. Yet none of that was true.

They did not want an answer to this question, they only wanted ammunition against Him. “Why are you testing Me?”: Immediately Jesus exposes them to the audience. “Bring Me a denarius to look at”: To ask for the legal coin by which the tax was paid meant, “bring Me a denarius” (Mark 12:15; Luke 20:24). While Jewish and even Greek coins might be used in everyday business, all knew that the Roman tribute must be paid with Roman money. The answer to this complex question was simple, in fact the answer was on the very coin that they all used every year to pay this tax! In seeking to unravel complex questions do not forget to look for the simple answer. “The coin bore stamped on it the answer to their own question” (Fowler p. 204).

12:16 “And they brought one. And He said to them, ‘Whose likeness and inscription is this?’ And they said to Him, “Caesar’s’”: “Because the Law had forbidden the making of images, most Jewish coins bore no human picture, just a design with a description” (Fowler p. 204).

Jesus’ question implied a recognized principle: the power to define legal money belongs to the State. Consequently, that government which can declare that constitutes legal tender for the payment of all debts, public and private, is the government which is commonly recognized as legitimate and having the right to rule. “The making and financial backing of coins is one of the areas wherein the State most obviously represents the interest of the citizens. They must see that they could not consistently refuse to pay the tax that enabled the government to guarantee their own economic system, while at the same time making use of Tiberius’ coins as a medium of exchange. This image and superscription implied not only Caesar’s right to coin money, but his right to organize the economic 8

world, a right that the circulation of his money involved and implied. Although, belonging to Caesar, people all over the empire employed the coin Jesus held up as a medium of exchange without any relationship to their religious or political leanings. Their use of it as legal tender implied their concession to Rome’s political claim to organize Mediterranean world economics” (Fowler p. 205).

Observe how Jesus involves them in the answer to the question.

12:17 “And Jesus said to them, ‘Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s”: 1. Jesus made it clear that paying taxes to a secular government was not inconsistent with the maintaining complete allegiance to God. In fact, in Romans 13, a civil, secular government is viewed as God’s servant in keeping peace, protecting the innocent and punishing the evil.

2. The Pharisees were under the same misconception that many Muslim people are under, that is, that they need an Islamic state in order to serve God acceptably. Jesus did not believe that the government must be “Christian” in order for God to receive His due. The Jewish people were under Roman domination and yet in that situation God could be served completely.

3. The then reigning Caesar was Tiberius (A.D. 14-37).

4. Fowler notes that there is a subtle change in words in this section.

“Accordingly, their question means, ‘It is right to GIVE taxes to Caesar?’ and He retorts, PAY BACK Caesar and God what is their right’. Your tribute is no voluntary gift as your question implies. You are paying back the Roman government money you legally and morally owe for every benefit and advantage that this regime provides its subjects” (p. 206).

5. Both Jesus and Paul explain that what is Caesar’s has been delegated to him

by God in the first place (Romans 13:1; John 19:11). Had the Jews forgotten (Daniel 2:21,37f; 4:17, 24-32; 5:21,23)? “The political irony of the historical situation in which the first century Hebrew nation found itself was the fact that God had not intervened to free them from Roman domination. It could be argued, therefore, that it was at least His permissive will that this domination continue to exist” (Fowler p. 207).

9

6. “Insofar as the political government does not interfere with the activities and adoration of God and His people, there is no violation of religious liberty in the paying of revenue to the State to pay for goods and services on behalf of the taxed. Money must come from somewhere to pay for law and order…God expects His people to help pay for the whole realm of governmental activity whereby the State benefits all its citizens by good laws…This is no gift to Caesar, but a legal and moral obligation. Can it be right to accept the advantages of orderly government and yet be unwilling to pay the cost of them?” (Fowler pp. 207-208).

7. The phrase, “and to God the things that are God’s” reminds us that Jesus did not demand unquestioning submission to all tyrants whatever their requirements (Acts 4:19; 5:29).

8. “Despite Jehovah Witnesses’ protestations to the contrary, God has not established a theocracy wherein we must render unto God what is Caesar’s” (Fowler p. 208).

9. Duty to God recognizes the sphere of obedience to State law too (1 Peter 2:13-17). There is a direct chain of command running from God down to the common citizen, a chain which runs right through the hands of the governing authorities of the land. Recognition of this truth should take the sting out of paying taxes.

12:17 “And they were amazed at Him”: His enemies were left amazed. Not only had He eluded their trap, but also more importantly, He had resolved a hotly debated issue with one clear statement. He left them responsible to both God and Caesar.

“To those multitudes who yearned for a political Messiah who would establish an earthly Kingdom of God and launch a violent revolt against Rome, this answer of Jesus was highly disappointing” (Fowler p. 210).

Jesus refused to bow before the worldly minded ambitions of misguided patriots (John 6:14). Among His own disciples He had exposed political ambition (Matthew 20:20-28) and misguided attitudes (18:1-35). Jesus was immune from flattery, this Jesus who appeared to need eager supporters, at the same time refused to compromise. “Did not every man have his price? Further, they just could not fathom how anyone could propose to establish His own kingdom while 10

demanding loyalty to the existing State. This completely baffled these materialists� (Fowler p. 210).

11