Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - Mark 12:1 - 12:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
PARABLE OF THE VINEYARD
12:1-12. Jesus, having denied the authority of the rulers, proceeds to show them in a parable the unfaithfulness to their trust which has lost for them their authority. The story is that of a vineyard let out on shares to cultivators, who maltreat the servants sent by the owner to collect his share, and finally kill his son, and whom the owner destroys, and turns over the vineyard to others. He also cites the proverb of the stone rejected by the builders which becomes the corner stone. The rulers see that the parable is aimed at them, but fear of the multitude holds them in check for the present.
1. Κὶἤξτ ατῖ ἐ πρβλῖ λλῖ—And he began to say to them in parables.
λλῖ, instead of λγι, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBGL Δ1, 13, 69, 118, 124, 346, mss. Lat. Vet. Egyptt. Pesh. Harcl. marg.
ατῖ evidently refers to the representatives of the Sanhedrim, the parable being a continuation of Jesus’ conversation with them.1 Mt. says that the chief priests and the Pharisees knew that the parable was directed at them; but he also represents Jesus as saying that the kingdom is to be taken from them, and given to a nation producing its fruits.2 But this confusion of rulers and people must not obscure the plain fact that in Mt. the parable is against the rulers. Lk. says that the parable was spoken to the people, but that the rulers knew that it was spoken against them, two things that are not at all inconsistent.3 ἐ πρβλῖ—in parables. This use of the plural indicates that Mk. had other parables in mind, though he gives only one. Mt. gives three, all bearing on the same general subject. Mk. states the general fact of teaching in parables, and selects one from the rest. This is one of the facts which seem to indicate that Mk. had the same collection of the teachings of Jesus as Mt. and Lk. to draw upon, viz. the Logia. Ἀπλν ἄθωο ἐύεσνA man planted a vineyard. This figure of the vineyard is taken from Isa_5:1, Isa_5:2. Even the details are reproduced. In the LXX. we find φαμνπρέηα…ᾠοόηαπρο …ποήινὤυα
φαμνis any kind of fence, or wall, that separates lands from each other. ὑοήινis the receptacle for the juice of the grapes, placed under the λνς or winepress, in which the grapes were trodden.4 προ—is the tower from which the watchman overlooked the vineyard. It was also used as a lodge for the keeper of the vineyard. γωγῖ—means tillers or cultivators. ἐέεο—ἀεήηεwent abroad. Far country, AV. is an exaggeration.
ἐέεο instead of -δτ, Tisch. WH. אAB* CKL.
2. τ κιῷat the season, at the proper time. As this vineyard was equipped with a winepress, this would not be at the grape harvest, but any time following the winemaking. λβ ἀὸτ κρῶ—The vineyard was let out on shares, the owner receiving a certain part of the product.
τνκρῶ, instead of τῦκρο, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBCLN Δ33, 433, three mss. Lat. Vet. Pesh.
3. Κὶλβνε ατνἔερν—And they took (him), and beat him.
κὶ instead of ο δ, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBDL Δ33, mss. Lat. Vet. Memph.
4. κκῖο ἐεαίσν κὶἠίαα—and that one they beat about the head, and insulted.
Omit λθβλσνε having stoned, before ἐεαίσν Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBCDL Δ1, 28, 33, 91, 118, 299, Latt. Egyptt. ἐεαίσν instead of -αωα, Tisch. WH. RV. אBL. ἠιαα, instead of ἀέτια ἠιωέο, Tisch. Treg. marg. WH. אBL 33, Latt. Egyptt. ἠίηα Treg. RV. D.
5. ΚὶἄλνἀέτιεAnd he sent another.
Omit πλν again, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBCDL Δ33, mss. Lat. Vet. Egyptt. οςbefore μνinstead of τὺ, Tisch. Treg. WH. אBDL Δ1, 33, and before δ same except D.
κὶπλοςἄλυ, οςμνδρνε, οςδ ἀοτνοτςand many others (they maltreated), beating some, and killing some. The verb to be supplied here has to be taken from the general statement of the treatment of the messengers by the cultivators of the vineyard, as the participles must agree with ο γωγίunderstood, and denote the several kinds of maltreatment.
There is no doubt that Jesus has in mind here the treatment of the prophets by the rulers and people, of which there is frequent mention by the O.T. writers.3 The parable is thus not an analogy, but an allegory.
6. Ἔιἕαεχν υὸ ἀαηό·ἀέτιεατνἔχτνπὸ ατύ—Still (after losing all these), he had one (other to send), a beloved son: he sent him last to them. ἐταήοτιτνυό μυthey will respect my Son_4 The Son in the allegory represents Jesus himself. The nation, which had rejected God’s servants, the prophets, will finally put to death the Son himself, the Messianic King.
εχνυὸ, instead of υὸ ἔω, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBC2 L Δ33, Harcl. (Pesh.). Omit ατῦhis after ἀαηό, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBCDL Δmss. Lat. Vet. Egyptt. Vulg. Pesh. Omit κὶafter ἀέτιεTisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBLX2Δ13, one ms. Lat. Vet. Pesh.
8. κὶἐέαο ατνἔωτῦἀπλνς—and threw him out of the vineyard. They put this indignity on his body, as this followed the killing.
Insert ατνafter ἐέαο, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV.אABCDMN Γ mss. Lat. Vet. Memph. Syrr.
9. Τ πισιὁκρο τῦἀπλνς;—What will the master of the vineyard do?
Omit ον then, after τ, Tisch. WH. BL one ms. Lat. Vet. Memph.
ἐεστικὶἀοέε—he will come and destroy. According to Mat_21:41, Jesus drew this answer from the chief priests and scribes themselves.
10. Οδ2 τνγαὴ πύη ἀέντ;—And did you not read this Scripture?3
In the original, this stone, rejected by the builders, but become the head of the corner, is Israel itself, rejected by the nations, defeated and exiled, but destined by God for the chief place among them all. The Psalm was sung probably after the return from the exile, when everything indicates that the hopes of the nation were raised to the highest pitch; when it seemed as if God was taking the first step towards the aggrandizement of the chosen people.
ἐεήηες κφλνγνα5—became the head of the corner, denoting the corner stone, which binds together the two sides of the building, and so becomes architecturally the most important stone in the structure. The story that there was a stone in the building of the Temple which had such a history, is unnecessary to account for so natural a metaphor, and evidently arose from the metaphorical use here.
11. πρ κρο ἐεέοατ—this (corner stone) came from the Lord. ατ evidently refers to κφλνγνα. In the original, the feminine is used, but obviously according to Hebrew usage, for the neuter, referring to the event itself as ordered by Jehovah. But the use of the fem. to translate this Heb. fem. is quite without precedent in the N.T., and is unnecessary here, as we have a grammatical reference to the fem. κφλν The meaning is “This corner stone came from the Lord, and is wonderful in our eyes.”
This use of the passage from the Ps. by Jesus is a very good illustration of the Messianic application of O.T. writings. There can be no doubt from the context that the historical reference is to the people of Israel. But what is said of Israel was a common and proverbial happening, that might come true of any one whose being contained within itself the promise of better things than belonged to his start in life, and is especially true of the truly religious person or nation. Cf. the parable of the mustard seed, and Isa_53. As a principle, therefore, it would apply especially to the Messiah. The question, whether Jesus used the passage according to a common view of his time as directly Messianic, or only as a statement of this principle, depends on our view of him. It seems to be a rational inference, from what we know of Jesus, that he had derived his idea of the Messianic office partly from the O.T., and that that idea is possible only with a rational treatment of the O.T., while the current view of his time would be derived from a literalistic and irrational treatment of it. And in general, we know that he so far transcended his age as to take a spiritual view of the O.T., and there is no reason to suppose that this would not include the rational treatment of a passage like this. That is, Jesus would see in it not a direct reference to himself, but only the statement of a principle applicable to himself.
12. ἔνσνγρὅιπὸ ατὺ τνπρβλνεπ—for they knew that he spoke the parable against them. This is the reason for their seeking to take him, not for their fear of the people. But as the latter statement is the last made, Meyer makes the subject of ἔνσνto be the ὄλςjust mentioned, in which case this would be a reason for their fear of the people. But there is a total absence of anything to indicate such a change of subject in ἔνσν and this is a greater difficulty than the one which Meyer seeks to remove. Meyer’s view also deprives the statement of its appositeness.1
The statement that they knew that Jesus spoke this parable against them is conclusive in regard to the meaning of it, and falls in with the parable itself, and with its context, placed as it is in the midst of a controversy between himself and the authorities. It is directed against the Jewish hierarchy, pointing out their sin in rejecting one after another of the prophets, culminating in their murder of the Messiah himself, and predicting their fate in consequence. But Mt., while he makes the same statement, v. 45, about the reference of the parable, makes Jesus say, v. 43, that the kingdom shall be taken from them, and given to a nation producing its fruits. This would seem to make the parable apply to the nation, and not to the hierarchy. Everything else, however, in Mt., as in Mk. and Lk., points to the hierarchy. It seems probable that Mt. therefore, in v. 43, adds to the parable, post eventum, that the nation was to share the fate of its rulers, and be superseded in their theocratic position by another (Gentile) nation. It plainly does not belong here, as the effect would be to bring rulers and people together against Jesus, whereas the statement is repeatedly made that, so far, it is Jesus and the people against the rulers.
THE QUESTION OF PAYING TRIBUTE TO ROME
13-17. Jesus is approached by Pharisees and Herodians with the question whether it is authorized under the theocracy to pay tribute to the Roman emperor, hoping to draw from him an answer, compromising him either with the Roman government or with the people. Jesus answers by pointing to the image and inscription of the emperor on the coin as a proof of their obligation to him, and bids them pay to Cæ what belongs to him, and to God what belongs to him.
13. φρσίνκ τ ἩωιννThese emissaries were chosen, because they occupied different sides of the question proposed to him. The Pharisees owed their popularity partly to their intense nationality and their hatred of foreign rule. The Herodians, on the other hand, were adherents of the Herods, who owed what power they possessed to the Roman government. Neither party, however, took an extreme position. The Pharisees are not to be confounded with the Zealots; they submitted to the inevitable. Nor is it to be supposed that the Herods had any particular love for the government that had helped them to power, to be sure, but had taken advantage of their weakness to make themselves supreme, and the Herods only their tributaries. Still, as to the question of the paying of tribute, with all the corollaries, they would be divided, and Jesus must offend one, or the other, by his answer. ἀρύωιλγ—they may catch him with a word. The word is to be not his own, but their question, artfully contrived to entangle him. The figure is that of the hunter with his net or snare.1
14. Κὶἐθνε λγυι ατ—and coming, they say to him.
κὶinstead of ο δ, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBCDL Δ33, mss. Lat. Vet. Egyptt.
This address of his artful enemies is well described in the ἀρύωι The question which they have to propose is one bristling with dangers, but then, they tell him, that is just what you do not care for. You have a sole regard for the truth, not for consequences nor persons. ΔδσαεTeacher. They said Rabbi. ἀηὴ—true, i.e. truthful. κὶο μλισιπρ οδνςand carest not for any one. This shows the particular kind of regard for the truth which they had in mind. It was one which did not stand in fear of man, would not be hindered by awe of kings, not even of the Roman emperor. ο γρβέεςεςπόωο—for thou dost not look at the person of men; dost not pay attention to those things which belong to outward condition, such as rank or wealth. This is a widening of the meaning of πόωο, belonging to the Heb. τνὁὸ τ Θο—the way of God, the course prescribed for men by God.2 ἔετ κνο3 Κίαι δῦα ἢο;—Is it right to give tribute to Cæ or not? This question took on a special form among the Jews, who claimed to be the members of a theocracy, so that paying tribute to a foreigner would seem like disloyalty to the Divine government. The question of policy, or necessity, is kept in the background, and the problem is confined to the rightfulness of paying such tribute. ἢο—ἢμ.5
15. Ὁδ εδς(ἰὼ) ατντνὑόρσνBut he, knowing (seeing) their dissimulation.
ἰὼ, instead of εδςTisch. א* D 13, 28, 69, 346, mss. Lat. Vet.
ὑόρσνthis word has been transliterated into our word hyprocrisy at a great loss of picturesqueness and force. It means acting, from which the transition to the meaning dissimulation is easy. What Jesus knew about these men was, that they were playing a part in their compliments, and their request for advice. They were acting the part of inquirers; really, they were plotters. They were trying to compromise him either with the government or the people. In his trial before Pilate we see what use they intended to make of one of the two answers to which they thought he was reduced. Luk_23:2. τ μ πιάεε—why do you try me? Our word tempt, in the sense of solicit to evil, is out of place here.1 What they were doing was to put him to the test maliciously. δνρο—a shilling.2
The point of Jesus’ reply is, that the very coin in which the tribute is paid bears on its face the proof not only of their subjection to the foreign government, but of their obligation to it. Coinage is a privilege claimed by government, but it is one of the things in which the government most clearly represents the interest of the governed. Tribute becomes in this way, not an extortion, or exaction, but a return for service rendered.
17. Ὁδ Ἰσῦ επνατῖ, Τ Κίαο ἀόοεΚίαιAnd Jesus said to them, The things belonging to Cæ pay to Cæ
Ὁδ, instead of Κὶἀορθὶ ὁ Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBCL Δ33, Theb.
ἀόοεpay. They had said, δῦα, give. Jesus makes it a matter of payment. τ Κίαο—the things of Cæ Strictly speaking, this means, Pay to the Roman government Roman coin. They themselves were tacitly recognizing the government, and availing themselves of their privileges under it by using its coin, and that left them no pretext for denying its rights. The coin represents simply the right of the government. The image and superscription on it show the government maintaining to the people the position not only of power, but of rights. It is in this, as in all things, the defender of rights. This gives to the government itself rights, of which tribute is representative. But our Lord’s reply is entirely characteristic. It suggests, rather than amplifies or explains. κ τ τ Θο τ Θῷand the things belonging to God to God. The way in which they had presented the question implied that there was a conflict between the claims of the earthly and heavenly governments. But Jesus shows them as each having claims. Cæ has claims, and also God; pay both. The difficulty with the Jews, and with all bodies claiming to represent God, is that they are zealous for him in a partisan way, jealous of his prerogatives, dignities, and the like, and make that do service for a real loyalty to him. These men were eager to assert God’s claim against a foreign king. Jesus was anxious that they should recognize his real claims, those that involved no real conflict, but belonged in the wider sphere of common duties. κ ἐεαμζνand they wondered. Well they might. Jesus had not only parried their attack, which was a small matter, but had thrown light on a very difficult question. The conflict of duties is one of the perplexities of life, and the question of the relation of the Christian to civil government is often one of the most trying forms of the general problem. Jesus’ answer is practically, Do not try to make one duty exclude another, but fulfil one so as to consist with all the rest. As far as the special matter is concerned, it recognizes the right of civil government, the obligation of those who live under a theocracy to be subject to civil authority, an obligation not abrogated, but enforced by their duty to God; that the Divine obedience does not exclude, but include other obediences; and finally, that human government, as included thus within the Divine scheme of things, is among the economies to be conformed to its perfect idea.
ἐεαμζν instead of ἐαμσν Tisch. WH. RV. אB.
JESUS ANSWERS THE PUZZLE OF THE SADDUCEES ABOUT THE RESURRECTION
18-27. The next attack on Jesus comes from another source. The Sadducees, the priestly class, being disbelievers in the resurrection, bring to him what is apparently their standing objection, of a woman having seven husbands here, and ask him whose wife she will be in the resurrection. Jesus’ answer is in two parts: first, that there is no marriage in the resurrection state; and secondly, that when God calls himself the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, their continued life is implied. Anything else is inconsistent with that relation.
18. ΣδοκῖιThe word denotes the sect as Zadokites. There is little doubt that the word itself comes from this proper name Zadok, and not from צדִק meaning righteous. Probably, the particular Zadok meant is the priest who distinguished himself by his fidelity in the time of David. 2Sa_15:24 sq., 1 K. 1:32 sq. After the return from the exile, among the different families constituting the priesthood, the sons of Zadok seem to have occupied the chief place. They were the aristocracy of the priesthood, and Ezekiel assigns them exclusive rights to its functions. Eze_40:46, Eze_43:19, Eze_44:15, Eze_48:11. The Sadducees, that is to say, were the party of the priests, and especially of the priestly aristocracy. As a school of opinion, they were characterized by the denial of the authority of tradition, maintaining the sole authority of the written Scriptures. As corollaries of this, they denied the resurrection, and the existence of angels or spirits.1 κὶἐηώω ατν λγνε—and they questioned him, saying.
ἐηώω, instead of ἐηώηα, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBCDL Δ33, Latt. Pesh. Memph.
19. κὶμ ἀῇτκο, ἵαλβ ὁἀεφςατῦτνγνῖαand leave no child, that his brother take the woman.
τκο, instead of τκα Tisch. Treg. marg. WH. RV. אca BL Δ1, 18, 241, 299, mss. Lat. Vet. Memph. Omit ατῦafter τνγνῖα Tisch. Treg. WH. אBCL Δ1, 61, 209, one ms. Lat. Vet. Memph.
This quotation is from Deu_25:5, Deu_25:6. It is introduced in order to show that the law itself provides for these successive marriages, thus expressly legalizing these successive relations, which the resurrection would make simultaneous. Their question is, therefore, whether the same Scriptures teach this, and the resurrection, which is inconsistent with it. The quotation does not attempt to reproduce the language.
21. μ κτλπνσέμ2—not having left seed.
μ κτλπν instead of κὶοδ ατςἀῆε and neither did he leave, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBCL 33, one ms. Lat. Vet. Egyptt.
22. κὶο ἑτ οκἀῆα σέμ—and the seven left no seed.
Omit ἔαο ατν…κὶbefore οκἀῆα, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBCDL Δ 28, 33, Memph.
This childlessness is specified as the chief element in the indeterminateness of the question, since if either of them had had children, that might have decided the question to whom the woman belonged.
ἔχτνπνω3 κὶἡγν ἀέαε—last of all the woman died also.
ἔχτν instead of ἐχτ, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBCGHKL Δ 1, 13, 28, 33, 69, mss. Lat. Vet. Egyptt. Pesh.
23. ἐ τ ἀατσιτνςατνἔτιγν;—In the resurrection, whose wife shall she be of them? This was probably the standing puzzle of the Sadducees, in which they sought to discredit the resurrection by reducing it to an absurdity.
Omit ον therefore, before ἀατσι Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBC* EF HLSUVX Γ two mss. Lat. Vet. Omit ὄα ἀατσν whenever they arise. Treg. WH. RV. אBCDL Δ28, 33, two mss. Lat. Vet. Egyptt. Pesh.
24. Ἔηατῖ ὁἸσῦ, Ο δὰτῦοπαᾶθ, μ εδτςτςγαά, μδ τνδνμντῦΘο; Jesus said to them, Is it not on this account that you err, because you know not the Scriptures, nor the power of God? δὰτῦοpoints forward to the μ εδτς the part. being used causally. What follows in v. 25, 26, develops these two defects in their consideration of the matter. Their ignorance of the power of God is taken up first, in v. 25.
Ἒηατῖ ὁἸσῦ, instead of Κὶἀορθὶ ὁἸσῦ επνατῖ, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBCL Δ33, Memph. Pesh.
25. This verse contains Jesus’ statement of the power of God in the resurrection. He has power not only to raise, but so to change the body, that marriage ceases to be one of its functions. It was because they were ignorant of this, that the Sadducees thought their case of seven husbands would be an argument against the resurrection.
ὅα …ἀατσνwhenever they arise. ὅα leaves the time of the resurrection indefinite. γμζνα—denotes the act of the father in bestowing his daughter in marriage.2 ὡ ἄγλιthe angels come as a race, not from procreation, but directly from creation. The power of God appears in this, in the transformation and clarifying of the resurrection body, so that marriage is not a part of the future state.
γμζνα, instead of γμσοτι Tisch. Treg. WH. אBCDGLU Δ1, 124, 209. Omit ο after ἄγλι Tisch. (Treg.) WH. RV. אCDFKLMU Δ Memph. Harcl.
26. This verse shows their ignorance of the Scriptures, which speaks of God as the God of their ancestors, language which is inconsistent with their mortality.
ἐ τ ββῳ Μϋές ἐὶτῦβτυ—in the book of Moses, at the place concerning the bush.
τῦ instead of τς before βτυ Tisch. Treg. WH. אABCLX ΓΠ πς instead of ὡ, before επν Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBCLU Δ108, 131.
Omit ὁ the, before Θὸ Ἰακ and Θὸ Ἰκβ Treg. WH. RV. BD, two passages in Origen.
27. ΟκἔτνΘὸ νκῶ ἀλ ζνω—Without the art., Θὸ becomes the pred., not the subj., and νκῶ is also anarthrous, so that it reads, He is not a God of dead men, but of living.
As this is commonly explained, it is made to hinge on the use of the present, instead of the past. The statement is, he is their God, not he was; and hence, they are still living. But this is a non sequitur, since it is a common expression in regard to both dead and living, and would be taken in the same sense, or used in the same sense, by either Pharisees or Sadducees. But it follows from the nature of God that, when he calls himself the God of any people, certain things are implied in the statement about these people, e.g. that they are righteous, not sinners; blessed, not wretched; and here living, not dead. That is, immortality may be inferred from the nature of God himself in the case of those whom he calls his. But Jesus applies it to the resurrection of the dead generally, and not simply of the righteous dead. What the Sadducees denied was the possibility of the resurrection on materialistic grounds; at the basis of their denial of the resurrection was the other denial of spiritual being.1 But Jesus proves the possibility of the resurrection by examples.2 Notice that Jesus does not reveal the fact of the resurrection, but argues it from acknowledged premises. Given, he says, the fact of God, and the resurrection follows. He recognizes the rational ground of immortality. And what is of more importance, he recognizes the validity of our intuition about God. We can say that certain things may be assumed about him on first principles.
Omit ὁbefore Θὸ, Treg. WH. RV. BDKLM marg. Δ. Omit Θὸ before ζνω, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אABCDFKLM marg. UX Δ Latt. Egyptt. Pesh.
πλ παᾶθ—you make a great mistake. This concise statement at the close makes an abrupt, but for that reason, forcible ending of the conversation.
Omit ὑεςον you therefore, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBCL Δone ms. Lat. Vet. Memph.
A SCRIBE QUESTIONS JESUS CONCERNING THE FIRST COMMANDMENT
28-34. A Scribe, apparently without the usual prejudices of his class, and impressed by his answer to the Sadducees, approaches Jesus with an honest question as to the first of the commandments of the Law. Jesus answers with the quotation from Deut. used at the beginning of morning and evening prayer, affirming the unity of God, and the consequent duty of loving him with an undivided heart. He adds a second command from Lev., bidding the people of God to love their neighbors as themselves. The Scribe assents to this, and adds that obedience to this law of love is a greater thing than all sacrifices. Whereupon, Jesus assures him that he is not far from the kingdom of God. But his enemies are evidently satisfied—they do not dare to question him further.
Judging from the fact, that he was led to put this question by seeing how well Jesus had answered the Sadducees, and from his commendation of our Lord’s reply to himself, as also from our Lord’s commendation of his answer, it seems probable that the Scribe did not ask this question in a captious spirit. He thought, Here is possibly an opportunity to get an answer to our standing question, about the first commandment. Mt. states the matter differently, making him one of a group of Pharisees, who gathered about Jesus with the usual purpose of testing him. He also omits the mutual commendation of Jesus and the Scribe.1 Lk. puts this scene at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry in Southern Palestine. He coincides with Mt. in regard to the purpose of the question, saying that the lawyer ἀέτ ἐπιάω.2
28. ἰὼ (εδς ὅικλςἀερθ ατῖ, ἐηώηε ατν Πί ἐτ ἐτλ πώηπνω3—seeing (knowing) that he answered them well, asked him, What (sort of) commandment is first of all?
ἰὼ, instead of εδς Tisch. Treg. א CDL 1, 13, 28, 69, mss. Lat. Vet. Vulg. ἐτλ πώηπνω, instead of πώηπσντνἐτλν Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBCLU Δ33, 108, 127, 131, Memph. Syrr.
πί asks about the quality of command, as if the scribe had in mind the different classes of laws. This is indicated also by his reply, v. 33.
29. Ἀερθ ὁἸσῦ, ὍιπώηἐτνJesus answered, The first is.
Ἀερθ ὁἸσῦ, instead of Ὁδ Ἰσῦ ἀερθ, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBL Δ33, Memph. Pesh. Omit ατ, Tisch. (Treg.) WH. RV. on same authority. ἐτν instead of πσντνἐτλν Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBL ΔMemph.
Ἄοε Ἰρή, Κρο ὁΘὸ ἡῶ, Κρο εςἐτ—Hear, O Israel, The Lord our God, the Lord is one.1 These words, calling the attention of Israel to the oneness of Jehovah, were used at the beginning of morning and evening prayer in the temple, as a call to worship. Κρο, Lord, is the translation of the Heb. Yahweh, and it is probable therefore that the second Κρο is subject instead of predicate.2 This unity has for its conclusion, that worship is not to be divided among several deities, but concentrated on one.
30. ἀαήεςthou shalt love. Love is the duty of man toward God, and this is in itself a revelation of the nature of God. It is only one who loves who demands love, and only one in whom love is supreme demands love as the supreme duty. He requires of men what is consonant with his own being. ἐ ὅη τςκρίςfrom all the heart. The preposition denotes the source of the love. It is to be from all the heart on the same principle of the unity of God. Being one, he requires an undivided love. This is added to the Sept. statement, which includes only the δαοα, ψχς and ἰχο. The Heb. includes the κρίς but omits δαοα. κρί is the general word for the inner man; ψχ is the soul, the life-principle, δαοαis the mind, and ἰχςis the spiritual strength. There is no attempt at classification, or exactness of statement, but simply to express in a strong way the whole being.
Omit ατ πώηἐτλ, this is the first commandment, Tisch. (Treg. marg.) WH. RV. אBEL ΔEgyptt.
31. Δυέαατ—The second is this.
Omit Κὶ And, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBL Δmss. Lat. Vet. Memph. Omit ὁοα like, Tisch. (Treg. marg.) WH. RV. אBL ΔEgyptt.
The Scribe did not ask for the second commandment, but the statement is incomplete without it. Our Lord wished to show that this first commandment did not stand at the head of a long list of heterogeneous commands, among which it was simply primus inter pares, but that it was one of two homogeneous commands, which exhausted the idea of righteousness. This second commandment does not stand in the O.T. in the commanding position of the first, but is brought in only incidentally in Lev_19:18, where, moreover, neighbor is evidently restricted to a brother Jew. Jesus puts it in a commanding position, and widens the meaning of neighbor to fellowman. ὡ σατνthe degree of the love to God is expressed by “from all thy heart”; the degree of human love is “as thyself.” The love of God includes in itself all other affections, but this love of the neighbor has over against it a love of self, with which Jesus allows it to divide the man. This self-love is already there, monopolizing the man, and the command is to subordinate it to the love of God, and to coö it with the love of man.
32. κλς δδσαε ἐʼἀηεα επς ὅιεςἐτ—Well, teacher! you said truly that he is one. AV. Well, Master; thou didst speak the truth; for, etc. This is not wrong, but what follows ὅιis so nearly what Jesus said, that it seems more natural to make it a repetition of that, than a reason for the scribe’s approval of it. RV. Of a truth, Master, thou hast well said, that, etc. The distribution of the words and of emphasis is against this. It would read ἐʼἀηεα κλςεπς
Omit θό, God, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אABKLMSUX ΓΠone ms. Lat. Vet. many mss. Vulg. Pesh.
οκἔτνἄλςπὴ ατῦthere is no other but he. This addition to Jesus’ words is taken by the Scribe from Deu_4:35, Deu_4:39. His enumeration of the parts of man entering into the love of God differs again from that of Jesus. The following table shows them all together.
Heb. κρί, ψχ, ἰχς
Sept. δαοα ψχ, ἰχς
Jesus. κρί, ψχ, δαοα ἰχς
Scribe. κρί, σνσς ἰχς
But of course, this is a matter of no importance, the two latter representing only the oratio variata of the writer.
33. Omit κὶἐ ὅη τςψχς and from all the soul, Tisch. (Treg. marg.) WH. RV. אBL Δ1, 118, 209, 299, one ms. Lat. Vet. Memph. πρσόεο, instead of πεο, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBL Δ33. Omit τνbefore θσῶ, Treg. WH. ABDX Γ.
πρσόεο—a more eminent thing. The positive expresses the idea of eminence, of surpassing other things, and the comparative denotes a higher degree of this quality. ἁοατμτν—whole burnt offerings.2 These words of the Scribe are an addition to what Jesus says about the superiority of these two commands. Jesus had compared them simply with other laws. The Scribe compares them specially with the laws of sacrifice, after the manner of the prophets.
34. νυεῶ—intelligently.1 ο μκὰ ε ἀὸτςβσλίςτ Θο—You are not far from the kingdom of God. The evident enthusiasm with which the Scribe received the statement of Jesus, and his ability to enter into the spirit of it so as to develop it in his own way, showed that he himself could not be far from the kingdom, with whose law he has shown himself to be in sympathy. To be friendly to its ideas, and sympathetic with its spirit, was the next thing to actual submission to it. αδὶ οκτ ἐόμ ατνἐεωῆα—no one dared to question him further. The question of the Scribe was friendly, but the whole series of questions to which it belonged was far from friendly; it was captious and hostile, having for its object to destroy the authority of Jesus by showing that he was no more than any other teacher when he came to face the real puzzles of the learned men. But Jesus had shown in his answers no mere mastery of the usual weapons of debate, but a grasp of the principles involved in each case, so that the purpose of his enemies was foiled, and his authority stood stronger than ever. It was no use to ask him questions therefore, which only recoiled on the questioners.
JESUS’ QUESTION, HOW THE MESSIAH CAN BE BOTH SON AND LORD OF DAVID
35-37. Jesus now raises a question himself. Their questions have been really a challenge of his Messianic claim. His question is a criticism of their Messianic idea. They call the Messiah Son of David, and Jesus asks how the exalted language of the Psalm in which David calls him Lord can be applied to one who is only David’s son.
35. ἀορθὶ—Answering their questions now by propounding one in his turn. πςλγυι ο γαμτῖ;—How do the Scribes say … According to the statement of Mt., he asked the Scribes, What do you think about the Messiah? whose son is he? And when they answered David’s, then he raises his difficulty. This simply emphasizes what is stated also in our account, that this title is treated by him as Rabbinical rather than Scriptural.
This is not a conundrum, a Scriptural puzzle, but a criticism of the Messianic teaching of the Rabbis. By emphasizing his descent from David as the essential thing about him, they were in danger of passing over the really important matter, which made him not so much David’s son, but his Lord. He felt that the title, Son of David, into which the Scribes compressed their conception of the Messianic position, misrepresented by its narrowness the prophetic statement of the Messianic kingdom, and involved in itself all the errors of current Jewish Messianism. And he was conscious himself of a greatness that could not be ascribed to his descent from David, but was the result only of his unique relation to God. Hence his question, which does not intend to match their riddles with another, but is intended to expose the insufficiency of the Messianic idea taught by the Rabbis. For this purpose he selects a passage from Psa_110, which was currently ascribed to David and was classed as Messianic. In this Psalm, so interpreted, David is made to address the Messianic king as his Lord. And the argument is made to hinge on this address—How can David call him Lord, when he is David’s son? Right here, then, we have the gravest difficulty to be encountered anywhere in regard to the N.T. acceptance of the traditional view of the O.T. For criticism rejects the Davidic authorship of this Psalm. It does not allege plain anachronisms, as in many Psalms, e.g. the mention of the temple, or of the destruction of Jerusalem, in Psalms ascribed to David. But there are other signs which point plainly to the great improbability of Davidic authorship. In the first place, it belongs to a group of Psalms, Books IV. and V., of the Psalter, which is evidently of late date; and the reasons would have to be special and obvious which would lead us to detach it from the rest. Whereas, it bears all the marks common to the class. Moreover, if it was written by David, then we have to suppose that there was some person occupying his own position of theocratic king, but so much more exalted than he that he calls him Lord. And this could only be the Messiah, the final flower of the Davidic line, whom David sees in vision. But the Psalm in that case would stand entirely by itself as being simply a vision of an indefinite future, having no roots in the circumstances of the times, whereas all O.T. prophecy is of an immediate future growing directly out of the present. This leads immediately to the conclusion that the Psalm is addressed by the Psalmist to some reigning king, who is also somehow a priest, and that the writer cannot himself be a king. And, finally, the Messianic conception in the time of David had reached no further than this, that his royal line was not to fail, even if his sons and successors proved sometimes unworthy. But the idea of a Messianic king, who was to be the ideal and climax of the Davidic line, and whom David himself could call Lord, was the fruit only of a long period of national disaster, creating the feeling that only such a unique person could restore the national hopes. The idea of a personal Messiah belongs to the period succeeding the close of the canon. This is the essential reason for rejecting the Davidic authorship. How, then, if David did not write the Psalm, can we account for our Lord’s ascription of it to him? The explanation that will account for all the other cases of this kind, viz., that the authorship is of no account, leaving him free to accept the current view as a mere matter of nomenclature and identification, without committing him to an endorsement of it, will not do here, since the argument turns on the authorship. But the real explanation of all the cases is, that inspiration, which accounts for whatever extraordinary knowledge belonged to Jesus in his earthly life, does not extend to such matters of critical research as authorship. Inspiration belongs to the sphere of the moral and religious intuitions, and did not keep even Jesus from ignorance of matters outside of its sphere. And here, in its proper sphere, it gave him a view of the deeper meaning of Scripture, that led to his declaration that Son of David would come very far from adequately stating their view of the Messianic king. That would include the universalism of the prophets, and the suffering servant of Jehovah of Isaiah. Moreover, it would include a unique relation to God, and to universal manhood, that would place him in a different class from David, and an exalted position, which would be indicated by the titles chosen by himself, Son of Man and Son of God, rather than Son of David.
36. ατςΔυὶ επνἐ τ Πεμτ τ Ἁί, Επν(ὁ Κρο1 τ κρῳμυDavid himself said in the Holy Spirit, the Lord said to my lord.
Omit γρ for, after ατς Tisch. Treg. marg. WH. RV. אBLTdΔ13, 28, 59, 69, two mss. Lat. Vet. Memph. Omit ὁbefore Κρο, Treg. WH. BD. B omits it in Sept.
ἐ τ Πεμτ τ Ἁί—in the Holy Spirit. This phrase denotes inspiration. David said this with the authority that belongs to an inspired man.1 (ὁ Κρο—in the original, this is Yahweh (Jehovah), of which ὁΚρο is the translation in the Sept.2 ὑοόιντνπδνσυa footstool of thy feet.
ὑοάω under, instead of ὑοόιν WH. RV.marg. BDgr Td 28, Egyptt.
37. ΑτςΔυὶ λγιατνΚρο—David himself calls him Lord. This makes the difficulty of their position—how lordship and sonship go together.
Omit ον therefore, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBDLTd Δ28, 106, 251, mss. Lat. Vet. Egyptt.
ὁπλςὄλςthe great multitude present at the feast, the multitude being distinguished from the leaders. This statement is parallel to those which represent Jesus, all through this controversy, as carrying the people with him.
WARNING AGAINST THE SCRIBES
38-40. Somewhere in the course of his teaching on this last day of public instruction, Jesus introduces a warning against the Scribes, the religious teachers and leaders of his time. He charges them with ostentation, an unhealthy craving for position and flattery, and a fearful inconsistency between the profuseness of their worship and the cruel meanness of their lives. Their condemnation, he says, will be greater than if they had been consistently wicked.
38. ἐ τ δδχ ατῦin the course of his teaching. Mk. does not place this warning exactly. Nor Lk. Mt. says then. All of them introduce it in this place. But the warning is not against those qualities of the Scribes that would be suggested by their misconception of the Messianic idea.
βέεεἀὸBeware of.3 ἐ σοαςπρπτῖ—to walk about in long robes. These σοα were the dress of dignitaries, such as kings and priests—long robes reaching to the feet. ἀπσοςsalutations of respect.
39. πωοαερα4—first seats.
πωολσα1—chief (reclining) places, not rooms, AV. What this chief place at table was, the varying custom prevents our saying.
40. ο κτσίνε—If this is a continuation of the preceding sentence, the nom. is an irregularity, as its noun is in the Gen_2 It is better, therefore, to begin a new sentence here, making ο κτσίνε the subj. of λμοτιthose who devour, etc., shall receive.3 This devouring of widows’ houses would be under the forms of civil law, but in contravention of the Divine law of love. ποάε—for a covering. That is, they tried to hide their covetousness behind a show of piety. See 1Th_2:5, where the meaning is, that the apostle did not use his preaching of the Gospel as a mere cloak of covetousness. πρσόεο κίαmore abundant, or overflowing condemnation. The adjective is strong. The comparison is with what they would receive if they made no pretence of piety. Notice that the show, as it is commonly with men, is of religion, while the offence is against humanity. The warning is addressed to the people, and bids them beware of religious leaders who affect the outward titles and trappings of their office, and offset their lack of humanity by a show of piety.
The exact verbal correspondence of Mk. and Lk. in this warning is proof positive of their interdependence.
JESUS’ COMMENDATION OF THE WIDOW’S OFFERING
41-44. The day closes with a scene in the treasury of the temple. Jesus is watching the multitude casting their offerings into the trumpet-shaped mouths of this receptacle, and among them many rich men casting in much. But there is one poor widow, who casts in two small coins, worth about a third of a cent, and Jesus commends her as having given more than all the rest. They, he says, gave out of their excess; she, out of her lack, gave all her living.
41. Κὶκθσςκτννιτῦγζφλκο—And having taken a seat over against the treasury.
Omit ὁἸσῦ, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBL Δtwo mss. Lat. Vet. Memph.
γζφλκο—treasury.1 The treasury meant is probably that in the outer court of the temple, having thirteen openings shaped like trumpets, for the reception of temple offerings and of gifts for the poor. χλὸ—literally, brass, but, like the Latin œ a general word for all money. ἔαλνwere casting, denoting the repeated act.
42. μαχρ—one widow; contrasted with the many rich. δολπά ὅἐτ κδάτςthe λπό was the eighth part of an as, the value of which was one and two-thirds cents, so that two λπάwere about two-fifths of a cent. κδάτςis the Latin word quadrans, meaning a quarter of an as. But the real value appears only from the fact that the denarius, or ten asses, was a day’s wages.
43. επνατῖ, Ἀὴ λγ ὑῖ, ὅιἡχρ ατ ἡπωὴπεο πνω ἔαε τνβλότνεςτ γζφλκο—said to them, Verily I say to you, that this poor widow cast in more than all who are casting into the treasury.
επν instead of λγι Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אABDKLU Δ, two mss. Lat. Vet. Egyptt. Syrr. ἔαε, instead of ββηε Treg. WH. RV. א (א ἔαλν ABDL Δ33 βλότν instead of βλνω, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אABDLX ΓΠ
…πεο πνω ἔαε τνβλότνcast in more than all who are casting. This is a case where the use of the comp., instead of the superl., is misleading, as the superl. means most of them all, whereas the comp. strictly means more than all together.
44. ὑτρσω—This expression is the exact opposite of πρσεοτς one meaning more than enough, and the other less than enough; excess and deficiency. RV. superfluity and want. ὅο τνβο—all her living, her resources. The idea of πρσεεοτςis that they did not trench on their resources, but gave a part only of what they had over and above that, while the poor widow gave all her resources. Hence, while the real value of their gifts was many times greater than hers, the ideal value of hers was the greatest of them all. Money values are not the standard of gifts in the kingdom of God, but only these ideal values. It is only as the gift measures the moral value of the giver, that it counts with him who looks at the heart.
It is noticeable that Mk. closes his account of this stormy scene in the Temple with this idyl. The connection is not the verbal and superficial relation to the widows of v. 40, but the contrast between the outward meagreness and inward richness of the widow’s service, and the outward ostentation and inward barrenness of the Pharisees’ religion.
Tisch. Tischendorf.
Treg. Tregelles.
WH. Westcott and Hort.
RV. Revised Version.
אCodex Sinaiticus.
B Codex Vaticanus.
G Codex Wolfi A.
L Codex Regius.
ΔCodex Sangallensis
1 .Codex Basiliensis
13 Codex Regius.
69 Codex Leicestrensis.
346 Codex Ambrosianus.
Lat. Vet. Vetus Latina.
Egyptt. Egyptian Versions.
Pesh. Peshito.
Harcl. Harclean.
marg. Revided Version marg.
1 See 11:33, 12:12.
2 Mat_21:43, Mat_21:45.
3 Luk_20:9, Luk_20:19.
4 AV. wine-fat. Fat is an old English word for vat. RV., pit for the winepress.
5 This vb. is common in Grk., but occurs in N.T. only in this parable in the Synoptics. The irregular form, ἐέεοfor δτ, is also repeated.
AV. Authorised Version.
A Codex Alexandrinus.
C Codex Bezae.
K Codex Cyprius.
N Codex Purpureus.
33 Codex Regius.
1 ἔερνmeans they flayed him, literally. This modified meaning, they beat him, does not belong to the best usage, though it is found sometimes from Aristophanes down.
D Codex Ephraemi.
Memph. Memphitic.
2 ἐεαίσνis evidently a corrupt form of ἐεααωα, and that word is treated as if it came from κφλ, instead of κφλιν Properly, it means to bring under heads, to summarize, but here, apparently, to wound in the head. It occurs only here in the N.T. Thay.-Grm. Lex.
28 Codex Regius.
Latt. Latin Versions.
3 2Ch_36:15, 2Ch_36:16, Neh_9:26, Jer_25:3-7.
4 On the use of the acc., instead of the regular dat., see Win. 32, 1 b, a.
Vulg. Vulgate.
1 On this use of the adv. as a prep., see Win. 54, 6.
M Codex Campianus.
ΓCodex Tischendorfianus
ΠCodex Petropolitianus
Syrr. Syriac Versions.
2 On the meaning of οδ without a preceding negative, see Win. 55, 6, 2.
3 The passage is Psa_118:22, Psa_118:23.
4 A translation of the Heb. היהל. Win. 29, 3 a.
5 A translation of the Heb. רש פִנָ.
1 See Win. 61, 7b.
1 Thay.-Grm. Lex.
2 This use of ὁό is familiar in the Heb. but uncommon, though not unknown, in the Greek.
3 κσνis the Latin word census, meaning a registration of persons and property on which taxation is based. In the N. T., it denotes the tax itself.
4 Κίαιthere is a mixture here of the personal and the titular use of this name. As a title of the Roman emperors, it takes the article properly.
5 ο is used in the first question, because it is one of objective fact. μ in the second, because it is a question of proposed action, subjective. Win. 55, 1 a.
1 See RV. American readings. Classes of Passages.
2 Penny, EV. is specially misleading, since the denarius had not only the nominal value of our shilling, but a far greater relative value, as it was a day’s wages. The denarius was a Roman coin, equivalent to ten asses, a ten as piece.
Theb. Thebaic.
1 See Schü II. 2, 26, II.
209 An unnamed, valuable manuscript.
2 μ is used here, instead of ο, because the denial is in some way subjective. μ gives it something the tone of “so the story goes.”
3 ἔχτνis here an adv. and denotes the last of a series of events, and its conjunction with πνω denoting persons is therefore incongruous. Hence the substitution of έχτ by some copyist. Cf. 1Co_15:8.
H Codex Wolfi B.
E Codex Basiliensis.
F Codex Borelli.
S Codex Vaticanus.
U Codex Nanianus.
V Codex Mosquensis.
1 μ is the negative used, because the statement is made by Jesus as a conjecture, of which he asks their opinion.
2 See 1Co_7:38. γμζνα is a Biblical word.
<