Note that in ‘a’ Jesus calls for the people to give God what is due to Him, and in the parallel points out the woman who gives more than her due. In ‘b’ Jesus declares that God is Abraham’s God, and in the parallel that the Messiah is David’s Lord, and brings out the distinctiveness of both. Central in ‘c’ are the two great commandments which sum up all the commandments and are at the heart of Jesus’ teaching concerning the Kingly Rule of God.

The Pharisees and Herodians Are Sent to Entrap Him (12.13-17).

In order to fully understand this incident we need to have some background to it. Many years before, Herod the Great had ruled Palestine as its tributary king, paying homage to the Emperor of Rome. But when he died (between about 5 and 0 BC) Palestine was split up. Archelaus received Samaria, Judea, and Idumaea, Herod Antipas received Galilee and Peraea and Herod Philip received the wild country in the North East around Ituraea, Trachonitis, Gaulanitis, Batanaea and Auranitis (including Caesaria Philippi).

But Archelaus was a failure, and as a result Rome took over direct rule. His lands became an annexe of the province of Syria. Most of such provinces were ruled by proconsuls responsible to the Senate, but troublesome parts, which required the permanent presence of cohorts of the legions, were ruled by a prefect or procurator, who was directly responsible for their peace to the Emperor. Judaea was one of these troublesome areas, and was ruled henceforth by a prefect/procurator of equestrian rank, a military man who cared little for Jewish sensibilities. Tribute was therefore gathered by him and paid directly to the Emperor.

All rulers were, of course, expected to gather tribute for the Emperor, but the exaction of the poll tax on Judaea when it became a Roman province resulted in a rebellion by Judas the Galilean (c. 6 AD) whose dictate was ‘external taxation is no better than an introduction to slavery’, and whose watchword was ‘no tribute to Caesar’. He was, of course, defeated and killed but his watchword became a permanent rallying cry. Thus paying tribute, especially the ‘poll tax’ (tax per head), was seen by the Jews as something to be done grudgingly, and by some extremists even as treason. The majority, however, paid it but hated it.

Meanwhile Roman silver coins were issued for the area with Caesar’s head on them. Coinage was seen as demonstrating who ruled an area. Any new king would issue his own coinage, often with his head on it, for it was evidence of his rule. And in a sense the coinage was looked on as his. But within the Roman Empire such kings could only issue bronze coinage which in Palestine at this time had no image on it. All silver coinage, however, was issued by Rome, bearing Caesar’s image and titles. It was because such coins had Caesar’s image on them that they could not be used to pay the Temple tax which had to be paid with a coin bearing no image. As a result of all this coins with Caesar’s head on them circulated widely in Judaea. Such was the denarius. Smaller coins could be issued by the procurators and bore in mind Jewish sensibilities (e.g. the widow’s mite), but the poll tax had to be paid with a Roman denarius. It was not only a means of revenue, but a declaration of loyalty to the Emperor.

Analysis.

• And they send to Him certain of the Pharisees and courtiers of Herod that they might catch Him in his talk (13).
• And when they were come they say to Him, “Teacher. We know that you are true and show deference to no one. For you do not regard the person of men, but of a truth teach the way of God (14a).
• Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar or not? Shall we give, or shall we not give?” (14b).
• But He, knowing their hypocrisy, said to them, “Why do you put Me to the test? Bring Me a denarius that I may see it” (15).
• And they brought it. And He says to them, “Whose is this image and superscription?”. And they said to Him, “Caesar’s”.
• And Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s and render to God what is God’s” (16-17a)
• And they marvelled greatly at Him (17b).

Note that in ‘a’ they sought to catch Him in His talk, and in the parallel they marvelled greatly at Him because they had not succeeded. In ‘b’ they flattered Him by suggesting that He only taught the way of God, and in the parallel He tells them to make sure that they therefore give to God what is God’s. In ‘c’ they ask whether they should give tribute to Caesar, and in the parallel He asks whose the image is that is on the coin and is informed that it is Caesar’s, demonstrating that it is his. Centrally we learn that He knows that they are putting Him to the test.

12.13 ‘And they send to him certain of the Pharisees and courtiers of Herod that they might catch him in his talk.’

The courtiers of Herod would be in Jerusalem for the feast and would be disturbed that a Galilean was causing trouble in Jerusalem. We know that they and the Pharisees had previously banded together to try to destroy Him (3.6). Now they had banded together again for the same purpose. But they recognised that they had first to discredit Him before the people prior to acting against Him, for His influence was huge and the crowds in Jerusalem were in a fervent state. It may well have been felt that the presence of Herodians in connection with such a question would cause Jesus to either over-react or be careless, for their careless attitude towards coins with Caesar’s head on them would be well known.

‘They send to Him.’ ‘They’ may be indefinite, or it may refer to the previously mentioned members of the Sanhedrin.

The courtiers of Herod would not be too worried about coinage with images on them, while the Pharisees would have been more wary. The Pharisees did not like them but they had to tolerate them, at least for paying the tribute, and teach the people to do the same. So they paid their poll tax to Caesar without open demur, otherwise they would have been discredited in the eyes of Rome, but they did not like it and resented it. Thus their approach in this way was hypocritical.

12.14-15a ‘And when they were come they say to him, “Teacher. We know that you are true and show deference to no one. For you do not regard the person of men, but of a truth teach the way of God. Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar or not? Shall we give, or shall we not give?”.’

The nerve of these men was outrageous. The last thing that they believed was that He taught the way of God in truth. But, aware that the crowds were listening, they were seeking to flatter Him and push Him into a corner. They were making it impossible for Him to refuse to speak without losing His prophetic authority with the people. On the other hand this is precisely how Mark saw Jesus, and wanted his readers to see Him.

‘We know that you are true and show deference to no one.’ They were pretending that they looked on Him as totally honest and therefore as one who would answer regardless of the consequences. They were saying that they believed that His answer would therefore necessarily be His direct view on the question in the sight of God without being swayed by what men would think. They were setting Him up to give a straight answer to a trick question, the answer that would condemn Him. It would be the answer that they wanted. They did not want Him to be able to evade their question this time.

‘For you do not regard the person of men.’ Again they stressed that they knew that He would not let the fear of man influence His answer. They wanted to guard against Him giving His answer having regard to the viewpoint of men such as the Pharisees, who did pay the poll tax because of their regard for men. (The Rabbis would have answered by quoting the traditions of the elders in their support. The past could take the blame). They are emphasising that if His answer suggests that He is fearful of what men will think or do, all will despise Him. Let Him therefore speak without fear or favour, (and thus they hoped condemn Himself in the sight of the Romans).

‘But of a truth teach the way of God.’ If they believed that they would not have been questioning Him. But all these words were meant for the crowds. They were putting Him in the position whereby He must answer or lose face, and whereby His answer will be seen to indicate what He believed to be the exact mind of God on the matter. They were doing to Him what He had done to the members of the Sanhedrin, asking a question He dared not answer unless He was prepared to face the consequences. And they were egging Him on to face the consequences by making it impossible for Him to hold back.

‘The way of God.’ That way in which God teaches men to live (Deuteronomy 8.6; 10.12-13; Psalm 27.11).

‘Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar or not? Shall we give, or shall we not give?” This was the crunch question. Was it right in God’s eyes to give tribute to Caesar or not? The question had been carefully thought out by some of the keenest brains in Jerusalem. If He replied ‘no’, they could immediately go to the authorities and charge Him with treason and with trying to persuade people not to pay their taxes. If He said ‘yes’ they knew that He would be discredited in the eyes of the people both as a prophet and as a potential Messiah, for while most of them paid their poll tax they did it grudgingly believing it to be wrong, and they would never believe that a true prophet of God would tell them that it was right to pay it. And certainly if He was the Messiah He would be here to release them from obligation to Rome, not to enforce it.

‘Is it lawful?’ That is, is it in accordance with the Law of God?

12.15b ‘But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said to them, “Why do you put me to the test? Bring me a denarius that I may see it.” ’

Not surprisingly Jesus could see right through them, and hypocrisy was the only word to describe their behaviour. They had said things about Him that must have made them cringe inside, for they believed none of it. So He first let them, and the crowds, know that He recognised that they were trying to test Him, and then He called for a denarius to be brought to Him. It is significant that neither He nor His disciples had one (compare Matthew 17.24-27 which shows this to have been the normal situation). But one was soon produced from these men, probably from an Herodian, who were pretending that they wanted to know whether it was right in God’s eyes to pay the poll tax.

12.16-17a ‘And they brought it. And he says to them, “Whose is this image and superscription?”. And they said to him, “Caesar’s”. And Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s and render to God what is God’s.”

As we have noted earlier, a sovereign’s issued currency was seen as belonging to that sovereign. And to possess such currency was to admit obligation to the monarch. Thus, He said, those who possessed such currency should give it back to Caesar, for it belonged to him and by their possession of it they were showing that they were his subjects. And that it did belong to him was shown by the fact that his head was stamped on it, and the writing on it was with his authorisation and further evidenced it as his. So let them give it back to him.

The reply was brilliant. The crowds would recognise that as a prophet of God He did not carry such currency, but that these His opponents did. And they would wholeheartedly agree with Him that such currency should be despised and rejected, and not carried. Indeed God did not want it, and men who did carry it merely demonstrated that they were Caesar’s men, not God’s. Thus the Pharisees and courtiers of Herod stood condemned by their own question, while Jesus was exonerated and vindicated in front of the crowd.

Meanwhile Jesus had in their view correctly stated that all things apart from what was stamped as Caesar’s, and was thus idolatrous, was God’s. There was here a quite clear declaration of God’s superiority to Caesar. In all things that mattered men must look directly to God. Caesar’s rule was limited. He had rightly judged.

Yet the crowds would have had to acknowledge, if they were honest, that sometimes they did have to handle the hated coinage, when they paid their poll tax. Thus by their very act of doing so they were acknowledging Caesar’s right to it. They would also have to acknowledge, when they thought about it, that even much of the other coinage they used was issued in Caesar’s name, so that when it came to money they held it under Caesar’s authority, and while they did so they therefore owed a duty to him. The alternative was to have nothing to do with anything Roman and face the consequences. His answer allowed them to do compromise.

There is, of course, the seed here of the later view that the powers that be are ordained of God and should be respected accordingly. But that was not really what Jesus was saying here. Nor was He splitting the world into two, part of which belonged to the state and part to God. He was rather emphasising that all things are God’s, except things of which He disapproves, and must therefore be used accordingly

This would certainly include paying one’s dues. And for those who used Caesar’s coinage that would include paying their taxes. They could not take the benefits and reject the responsibilities. So He did countenance obedient response to the state where it was not against God.

12.17b ‘And they marvelled greatly at him.’

They were baffled. He had brilliantly avoided their trap and they could only be amazed. They had thought that they had got Him this time. But they had been wrong. And they looked at Him with grudging admiration. His ways were marvellous in their eyes.

A Second Direct Attempt to Discredit Jesus (12.18-27).

It was now the turn of the Sadducees to approach Him. They knew that the crowds as a whole believed in the resurrection of the dead, following the teaching of the Pharisees. But the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the dead (verse 18). Their main emphasis was on the five books of Moses, the first five books of the Bible, and they claimed that there was no mention of the resurrection in them. While they did also almost certainly acknowledge the writings of the prophets to some degree, their ideas were mainly centred on the cult and its importance for prosperity in this world. The Sadducees came mainly from the leading lay members of the aristocracy, and the Chief Priests may well mainly have been Sadducees although we know so little about the sect that we cannot be certain. They tended to be proud, harsh, worldly and wealthy, attitudes which went with their belief. For their view was that they prospered because God was pleased with them, and that others did not because they were unworthy. Most would be involved in ensuring the maintenance of the activities of the sanctuary in one way or another, making them feel very superior.

So they sought to demonstrate in front of the crowds that Jesus taught the resurrection from the dead, but could not evidence it from (Old Testament) Scripture. Thus He should not be listened to.

12.18-19 ‘And there come to him Sadducees who say that there is no resurrection, and they asked him saying, “Teacher, Moses wrote to us that if a man’s brother die, and leave a wife behind him, and leave no child, that his brother should take his wife and raise up seed to his brother.” ’

This provision of the Law is found in Deuteronomy 25.5-10. The purpose of it was to ensure that land remained within a family, and to ensure continuity of the line. Men lived on in their children. Thus it was looked on as a brotherly duty to ensure that a man who died without children had children provided by the seed of his brother being planted in his surviving wife. The child was then looked on as being the child of the dead man and inherited accordingly.

12.20-23 “There were seven brothers. And the first took a wife and dying, left no seed. And the second took her and died, leaving no seed behind him. And the third did the same. And the seven left no seed. Last of all the woman died as well. In the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven, for the seven had her to wife?”

The Sadducees had a very materialistic view of the resurrection as taught by others. They saw it as being intended to suggest the introduction of a new life which was simply an idealistic improvement on the present life. In that they were like the crowd, for popular views of the afterlife tended to make it an extension of this life, with whatever men long for in this life being provided more abundantly. Scripture, however, reveals things differently. It says, ‘eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor has entered into man’s heart, the things which God has prepared for those who love Him’ (1 Corinthians 2.9), and reveals that God’s Heaven is thus not just a continuation of earth with the bad things removed, but something new altogether.

12.24 ‘Jesus said to them, “Is not this the reason that you err, that you know not the Scriptures, nor the power of God?”

Jesus’ attack was twofold. Firstly that they failed to understand the true meaning of the Scriptures. Secondly that they failed to appreciate the power of God. They thought that the resurrection was impossible. But they needed to recognise that God could do the impossible.

12.25 “For when they shall rise from the dead they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as angels in heaven.”

Their ‘problem’ arose from their misunderstanding which resulted in the idea that heaven was like earth. But Jesus declares that it is not so. In heaven men become spiritual beings like the angels and are not affected by physical desires and requirements. Nor would there be any need for reproduction for none would die. All would live for ever. Note that He was not saying that resurrected men become angels, only that they would share the same essential heavenly nature because, like them, they were made ‘in His image’.

12.26 “But as touching the dead that they are raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the place headed The Bush, how God spoke to him saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You do greatly err.”

Having dealt briefly with the nature of the resurrection life Jesus then dealt with the matter at the heart of the controversy, the resurrection as indicated in the book of Moses.

The essence of His argument was that God, as ‘the living God’, is such that He could not be described as someone’s God in the present if they were not still in some way still alive. He was known in Moses’ day as ‘the God of Abraham’. But unless Abraham still existed at that time such a title would be meaningless. He would be being presented as a God of the dead, a God of nothingness. What kind of encouragement would it be to say, ‘I am the God of a shade’. So the very use of the title indicated that Abraham was still in some way active and alive. The same applied to Isaac and Jacob. It probably, however, goes further than this. It was not only a rational argument but an argument directed at the heart. They knew that God is the living God. They boasted in the fact. Then let them ask themselves how such a God could describe Himself in terms of death and nothingness. It would be impossible. As the living God He could only describe Himself in terms of what lived.

Nor could a God of the dead have meant much to Moses. He very much needed a God of the living, a God of the present not of the past, the One Who could say ‘I am what I am’, the eternally present, not ‘I was what I was’. So as His being the ‘I am’ is paralleled with the fact of His being the ‘God of Abraham’ in the present, He is suggesting that Abraham (and Isaac and Jacob) must still exist in some way. Thus they would enjoy the resurrection (for there was no other form of afterlife acceptable to the Jews).

There may also have been the further thought that God is the God of covenant. He was ‘the God of Abraham’ precisely because He had entered into a living covenant with him. Abraham had loved and served Him, and had enjoyed His favour. He had shown His love to Abraham time and again. That was what His being ‘the God of Abraham’ indicated. Did the Sadducees then think that the living God would forget that covenant and that relationship when Abraham died? That He would just ‘drop him’ and overlook him and let him sink into nothingness, while still claiming to be his God? Never! For then He would cease to be the God of Abraham. He would simply be the God of the present generation. He would cease to be the faithful God towards those with whom He was in covenant. And that could not be. So Abraham must still exist in some way.

Jesus’ argument was thus twofold, based on the nature of God. Firstly that He is the living God, bringing and maintaining life where He is, with all with whom He is genuinely in covenant, and secondly that He is the faithful God Who will ever be faithful to those with whom He has entered into relationship. And this to be seen as demonstrated from Scripture by His name, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob (with all of whom He made covenants). This was similar to the experience of the psalmist, who had the same instinct. ‘Nevertheless I am continually with You, You have held my right hand, You will guide me with your counsel, and afterwards receive me to glory” (Psalm 73.23-24). He too knew that the God Who had been so close to him within the covenant could not desert him in the end.

A third factor which might have appealed to the Sadducees (and the Pharisees) was the use of the tense (assumed), ‘I (am) the God of Abraham ---’, thus bringing the relationship into the present and signifying that Abraham existed now. But we must not see Jesus as using semantics to prove His point. Rather He was using the argument of God’s ultimate faithfulness and love towards His own.

‘In the place headed The Bush.’ For convenience in the Synagogue the Law was divided into sections, each of which was given a heading. The heading of this section was The Bush (compare ‘the section headed Abiathar the High Priest’ in 2.26; compare also Romans 11.2 RV margin).

“You do greatly err.’ Jesus considered their rejection of the resurrection to be a great error.

The Approving Pharisee and The Law of Love (12.28-34).

The idea that God is the living God now leads on to an incident which demonstrates that at least one Rabbi was prepared to give genuine credit to Jesus and even to learn from Him. It showed that not all Rabbis were necessarily in the same mould (compare Acts 5.34 on). Matthew suggests that he was sent by a group of Pharisees who had come together to see if they could do better than the Sadducees (Matthew 22.34). He would not be the first to be sent for the wrong reasons and finish up convinced. There are often genuine men among questioners, and he would be chosen because he was of high repute.

Analysis.

• a And one of the Scribes came and heard them questioning together, and knowing that He had answered them well, asked Him, “What commandment is the first of all?” (28).
• b Jesus answered, “The first is, Hear Oh Israel, The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength. The second is, You shall love your neighbour as yourself. There is no other commandment greater than these” (29-31).
• c And the scribe said to him, “Teacher, you have well said that He is one, and there is none other but He (32).
• b “And to love Him with all the heart and with all the understanding, and with all the strength, and to love His neighbour as himself is much more than whole burnt offerings and sacrifices” (33).
• a And when Jesus saw that he answered thoughtfully, He said to him, “You are not far from the Kingly Rule of God.” And no man after that dared ask Him any question (34).

Note that in ‘a’ Jesus is questioned having answered questions well, and in the parallel none dared question Him again. In ‘b’ Jesus declares the two great commandments, and in the parallel the Scribe expounds on them. Central in ‘c’ is the fact that God is One, and that there is none other but He.

12.28 ‘And one of the scribes came and heard them questioning together, and knowing that he had answered them well, asked him, “What commandment is the first of all?”

‘Knowing that He had answered them well.’ The scribe had heard the dispute and was greatly impressed. Matthew says that in his question he was testing Jesus (Matthew 22.35) but that need not necessarily be taken in a bad sense (compare Luke 10.25). It may have been in order to bring out that Jesus stood up well to testing. Many a student who respects his teacher also seeks to test him. He may have genuinely wanted to know how reliable Jesus was.

“What commandment is the first of all?” The Rabbis attempted to differentiate the importance of different commandments, separating them into ‘great’ or ‘heavy’ and ‘little’ or ‘light’, and would often seek to trace them back to a general principle. Thus Hillel is said to have summed up the Law as ‘what you hate for yourself do not do to your neighbour. This is the whole Law. The remainder is commentary. Go and learn.’ This did not, of course, signify that he did not see the remainder of the Law as important, for he saw it as God’s revelation to man.

But others frowned at seeking to select out one Law and considered all were important. There was none that could be omitted. So important was this principle considered to be that the Laws from the book of Moses were listed and they produced 365 prohibitions and 248 positive commands. They believed that every one of these had to be treasured and obeyed. But that this could lead to a cold, stern obedience lacking in love is obvious. And it took the eyes off God. In the light of all this Jesus was thus being called on to supply an answer which might solve the problem.

12.29-31 ‘Jesus answered, “The first is, hear Oh Israel, The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength. The second is, You shall love your neighbour as yourself. There is no other commandment greater than these.” ’

Jesus answered willingly by turning men’s eyes back on God, and to the Scriptures. While He saw the whole Law of God as the word of God (7.13) He was not hidebound about the equal importance of each detail. He recognised that what was of most importance was the attitude of heart required by Scripture. Significantly Jesus puts God first. To Him relationship to God was of prime importance. He would have had no truck with those who said that our attitude towards our fellow man was all important. (That is our fellow man’s view). On the other hand the immediate inclusion of the other commandment demonstrates that He nevertheless did consider that it too was of great importance. He did therefore also consider that man’s relationship with man was important. For as John would later say, ‘he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God Whom he has not seen’ (1 John 4.20). The two commandments thus went together in Jesus’ eyes as one, but with love for God primary.

The first commandment as here stated by Jesus, is taken from Deuteronomy 6.5 (where ‘with all your mind’ is excluded) and was repeated by strict Jews daily. It was carried around in the phylacteries worn by Pharisees, especially at the time of prayer, and also fixed to their doors in small tubes (see Deuteronomy 6.8-9, which they interpreted literally). They would not have doubted its great importance. The second is taken from Leviticus 19.18. As its context reveals it especially had in mind complete honesty, fair judgment, non-talebearing, and avoiding hatred, vengeance, and the bearing of grudges, but allowed for rebuking a neighbour, although without permanent rancour (Leviticus 19.13-18). In sum the two commandments cover both tables of commandments as given to Moses, attitude and behaviour towards God and attitude and behaviour towards men.

Matthew 22.37 excludes the opening words, in his much abbreviated summary, but it is doubtful if a Jew would orally have repeated the command without them.

We note in passing that Jesus splits man’s make-up into four, heart, soul, mind and strength, a warning against taking such divisions too strictly. Paul divided man’s make up into three (spirit, soul and body - 1 Thessalonians 5.23). The purpose in both cases was not in order to analyse and define man but in order to cover every aspect of a man’s being. It was not an attempt to strictly define his make up and divide it up, for man is a unity.

It is true that the general idea of what Jesus said is found in the Testament of the Twelve patriarchs (1st century BC). ‘Love the Lord and love your neighbour, have compassion on the poor and weak’ (Issachar 5.2). ‘I loved the Lord, in the same way also every man with my whole heart’ (Issachar 7.6). ‘Love the Lord through all your life, and one another with a true heart’ (Dan 5.3). But the ideas were not new there either. They were found in the Law of Moses. They simply summarised the ten commandments.

Yet as far as we are aware Jesus was the first to bring these two commands together as one. The incident in Luke 10.25-37, where the Pharisee cites them, may indicate that the combination was well known, but it may equally be that he had heard Jesus citing them. The question is not of great importance. What is important is that Jesus declared that they summed up the Law, and that that meant that attitude of heart was more important than detail.

The commands begin with a declaration that there is only One God, and that is the Lord God of Israel. It then declares the requirement for totality of love for Him with the whole being. God is to be all important and all absorbing. Man’s first consideration and desire should be to know Him, to love Him and to be pleasing to Him as a loving son is to his father (Malachi 1.6). And this immediately challenges us. We have only to consider our own response to this to recognise our own sinfulness. We know we should be like this always but so often we are not. It was an impossible demand. That is why Paul could say, ‘All have sinned and come short of the glory of God’ (Romans 3.23). It was a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, and to continually make us depend on Christ.

Then follows the command to love our neighbour as ourselves. This is a lower love to that which we have for God. We are not to be totally absorbed in either our neighbour or ourselves. But we are to love them with a true heart, and as Jesus made clear in Luke 10.25-37 our neighbour is anyone whose heart is right toward us, whatever their religion, race or colour. It is a practical love, a love which acts. We may not feel gushing towards them, but we are to behave towards them as God would, and in a way that pleases Him. (That Luke 10.25-37 is a separate incident from this comes out in an examination of the detail).

‘There is no other commandment greater than these.’ While Jesus in the end required total perfection, He recognised men’s weakness (how gentle He was with His failing disciples) and therefore the importance of the need for them to understand what their aim should be. As the Pharisees had proved for themselves, the task of keeping every smallest Law, with its ramifications in the tradition of the elders, was beyond them even from a memory point of view. It was much better therefore to concentrate on prime laws, laws of relationship, while using the others as a guide. Let any man be like this then and it would reveal that he was truly one who had been blessed by God, for he could not do it otherwise.

12.32-33 ‘And the scribe said to him, “Teacher, you have well said that he is one, and there is none other but he. And to love him with all the heart and with all the understanding, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself is much more than whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.” ’

The scribe was thoughtful and even more impressed. In his response his attitude reflected that of Isaiah 1.10-20; Hosea 6.6; compare also 1 Samuel 15.22. Sacrifices and whole offerings were required, and when offered from a true heart were good, but without rightness of heart and behaviour they were nullified. Obedience truly was better than sacrifice for it indicated a genuine response towards the One Who was worshipped, which, if missing, made the ritual empty and meaningless.

‘You have well said that He is One, and there is none other but He.’ This idea combines Deuteronomy 6.5 with Deuteronomy 4.35. The lack of actually mentioning ‘God’ is typically Jewish and a sign of authenticity. The oneness of God was a basic tenet of the Jewish faith and all important to them. The scribe liked Jesus’ emphasis on it. But he also demonstrated that his own heart was genuine by his recognition of the need for love towards God and neighbour, and of its primary importance, a love without which religious ritual and ‘law-keeping’ was meaningless.

‘Whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.’ This covered the whole of the sacrificial system, the sacrifices wholly offered to God and not partaken of, and those of which men were allowed to partake.

12.34a ‘And when Jesus saw that he answered thoughtfully, he said to him, “You are not far from the Kingly Rule of God.”

Jesus recognised that this Scribe was genuine and that his thinking was along the right lines, and declares that he is very near to knowing the genuine truth about God and coming under His kingly rule in the new age about to begin. The fact that the scribe answered thoughtfully and not dogmatically demonstrated his genuineness. He was not there to argue, but to think and learn. The next step was for him to recognise Jesus for Whom He was, that God was beginning His new work by the Spirit, and that the Kingly Rule of God had drawn near in Jesus. Then he would be able to enter the Kingly Rule of God (John 3.2-6), that eternal life for which the Pharisees vainly strove.

We should note how the incident of the rich young man highlights Jesus’ words here, for while Jesus had initially pointed him to commands which called on him to love his neighbour, He had ended up by challenging his love for God. He had shown him that his love for God was deficient by calling on him for a true and practically expressed love of his neighbour. Thus he went away not only aware that he did not love his neighbour, but also that he did not love God sufficiently.

12.34b ‘And no man after that dared ask him any question,’

The challenges to Jesus now ceased. His replies had floored His enemies. They recognised that all that they would do by asking questions was discomfort themselves even more, vindicate Jesus’ teaching and set the crowds more against them. Now it will be Jesus’ turn to ask the awkward questions.

A Comparison of the Son of David with the Messiah (12.35-37).

The context of this incident is not given by Mark apart from saying that He was teaching in the Temple, but it does seal off what has previously been said about Him as being the Son of David, and expands on it. Matthew sees it as partly addressed to the group of Pharisees who had sent the Rabbi just mentioned to question Him (Matthew 22.41). We must presume therefore that they were part of the crowd gathered round, eager to see how it went. In Luke they are described as a vague ‘them’. Perhaps Mark wants us to see His words as being partly directed at the Rabbi who was ‘not far from the Kingly Rule of God’. The point, however is that having made clear that Jesus is ‘the Son’ he now wants to clarify in men’s minds as to how that ties in with Jesus’ Messiahship, as Jesus Himself had done.

The context is revealing. To the Sadducees Jesus has stressed that God is the unique God of Abraham and that He is the God of the living. In enunciating the two great commandments Jesus has stressed that ‘God is one’, and the Scribe’s reply has brought out His oneness, and stressed Jesus’ belief in it. The context is thus very much that of the oneness of the living God, portraying a high view of God. It must therefore be seen as significant that Jesus now introduces a remarkable statement that makes the reader and the crowds see another side of things, and that is that the coming Christ (‘Anointed One’) is not just the son of David, but is also David’s Lord. And all knew Who David’s Lord was.

His question may be directed at a Rabbinic idea that the Christ was ‘merely the son of David’ and therefore not superior to David, nor to the religious leadership, thus making him purely political and secondary. Or it may simply indicate a statement of fact. But Jesus certainly wanted to bring out that the Messiah was not only superior to David, but was of a totally higher status. In fact that David addressed Him as ‘my Lord’.

Analysis.

• a And Jesus answered and said as He taught in the Temple (35a).
• b “How do the Scribes say that the Christ is the son of David?” (35b).
• c “David himself said in the Holy Spirit, ‘The Lord said to my Lord’ ” (36a).
• d ‘You sit on my right hand until I make your enemies the footstool of your feet’ (36b).
• c “David himself calls him Lord” (37a).
• b “In what sense then is He his son?” (37b).
• a And the common people heard Him gladly (37c).

Note that in ‘a’ He taught in the Temple, and in the parallel the people heard Him gladly. In ‘b’ He asked how (in view of the Scripture that He will now point to) the Scribes can say that he is merely the son of David, and in the parallel asks how that can be so. In ‘c’ He stress that David called Him Lord, and in the parallel declares the same. Centrally in ‘d’ He emphasises the exaltation by God of the Messiah in order that He might express His Sonship by sitting Him at His right hand.

12.35-37 ‘And Jesus answered and said as he taught in the Temple, “How do the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David? David himself said in the Holy Spirit, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, you sit on my right hand until I make your enemies the footstool of your feet.’ David himself calls him Lord. In what sense then is he his son?” And the common people heard him gladly.’

‘As He taught in the Temple.’ Jesus’ ministry to the people continued unabated.

“How do the Scribes say that the Christ is the son of David?” The term Son of David was used in a Pharisaic writing called the Psalms of Solomon which was written prior to the time of Jesus in the 1st century BC, so that while it was not a commonly used description of the coming Messiah it was certainly in use as such by some. And it is in fact possible that some Rabbis, especially perhaps with Jesus in mind, were downgrading ‘the Messiah to come’ into a kind of lesser David, a mere ‘son of David’, in contrast with the glorious figure often presented in apocalyptic literature (for all would have agreed that the Coming One would be the son of David in some way as the Old Testament makes clear - e.g. 2 Samuel 7.13, 16; Isaiah 9.2-7; 11.1-4; Jeremiah 23.5-6; 30.9; Ezekiel 34.23-24; 37.24; Hosea 3.5). We have no record of the Pharisees actually seeing Jesus as the son of David, indeed there is evidence that they refused to do so (Matthew 21.15-16), presumably because they could not accept that He was the Messiah, about whom there were, in fact, many differing views, as is especially witnessed by the Dead Sea Scrolls where the Messiah of David appears in some ways to be inferior to a Messiah of Aaron. Others thought in terms of the coming of a teaching Messiah.

Jesus was neither directly denying that He was the son of David, nor was He directly here referring to Himself as such. But both Matthew and Luke have already made clear in their genealogies that He was the Son of David, while Mark has brought it out by its use elsewhere (10.47, 48). What He was arguing against was that that was all that the Messiah was. As we have seen earlier (on 10.47) ‘Son of David’ was not a prominent Messianic title at this time, although undoubtedly used by some as is evidenced by its use in the Psalms of Solomon.

‘David himself said in the Holy Spirit.’ It is clear from this that Jesus accepted the divine inspiration of the Psalms as ‘prophetic’ books. He is referring here to Psalm 110 which is headed ‘a psalm of David’. Reference to the institution of ‘the order of Melchizedek’ (verse 4), referring to the old King of Salem in Genesis 14, suggests that it was written not long after the capture of Jerusalem by David, when it would have been suitable for pacifying the Jebusites and incorporating them into the covenant, and yet before a time when it would be looked on as heresy. David and his heirs were to be seen as priest-kings in Jerusalem, acknowledged by the Jebusites there, even if nowhere else. This would have aided their assimilation into the faith of Israel.

There are good grounds for stating that this Psalm was interpreted Messianically in the pre-Christian period. This is confirmed by the Midrash on Psalm 18.36 where Psalm 110.1 is quoted by way of illustration in a Messianic sense. Later the interpretation was dropped by the Rabbis because the Christians had taken it over. Now, said Jesus, if David wrote this Psalm with a future king in mind, now interpreted as the Messiah, he was addressing the Messiah as ‘Lord’. And he was not only addressing Him as Lord but was portraying Him as God’s right hand man. That being so he must have recognised the Messiah to be far superior to himself.

Psalm 110 is constantly quoted Messianically in the New Testament. See Acts 2.34, of His ascending the throne of God as both Lord and Messiah; Hebrews 10.12 where, after offering one sacrifice for sins for ever, He ‘sat down at the right hand of God’; and with regard to the Melchizedek priesthood in Hebrews 6.20; 7.17, 21.

So Jesus was here concerned to bring home to His listeners in His usual veiled way that His status far exceeded that of David and that He was destined to sit at God’s right hand with His enemies subdued before Him (compare 14.62). This idea also contained the idea of Sonship, for in Judah it had regularly been the son who acted alongside his father in ruling Judah, but also of essential unity. He spoke as representative of the throne.

‘And the common people heard Him gladly.’ His popularity with ordinary people continued unabated, no doubt to the chagrin of the authorities. All their efforts to diminish Him seemed to be in vain.

Jesus’ Criticism of Certain Rabbis and The Contrast Made By Him of A Widow’s Generosity (12.38-44).

Having been challenged by the different leading parties in Judaism, and having given them a final weighing up, Jesus now feels a responsibility to warn the people against the Scribes, whose influence over the people was so great. The ideas here are expanded on in Matthew 23. Mark’s rendering gives us very much a summary. There is a threefold contrast in what follows. Firstly, the Rabbis are described as those who devour widows’ houses, that is, as those who persuade them to give them gifts far beyond their means. They are depicted as greedy to receive such gifts. Secondly in what follows the widow is described as giving all that she had to God. Her unacclaimed generosity is seen as in strong contrast with the greed of the Scribes. Thirdly the disciples are meanwhile seen as admiring the Temple, and its adornments when they should have been admiring the widow’s two mites. Only Jesus sees through to what is essential.

Analysis.

• And in His teaching He said, “Beware of the Scribes” (38a).
• “Who desire to walk in long robes” (38b).
• “And to be saluted in the marketplaces” (38c).
• “And the chief seats in the synagogues, and chief places at feasts” (39).
• “They who devour widow’s houses” (40a).
• “And for a pretence make long prayers” (40b).
• “These will receive greater condemnation” (40).

Note how in ‘a’ they are to beware of the Scribes, because is the parallel they deserve condemnation. In ‘b’ they desire to walk in long robes to be seen of men, and in the parallel they pray extended prayers for a similar reason. In ‘c’ they like being saluted in places of business and activity and the places where people go, and in the parallel demonstrate their own unseemly ‘business’ activity by taking undue advantage of helpless women in the places where they live, while centrally in ‘d’ they love to be honoured in their religious activities.

There is an interesting contrast here between the requirement made to the Scribe earlier to love God with heart, soul, mind and strength, in every aspect of life, and the picture of these men who love themselves with all their heart, soul, mind and strength, in every aspect of life.

12.38 ‘And in his teaching he said, “Beware of the scribes who desire to walk in long robes, and to be saluted in the marketplaces, and the chief seats in the synagogues, and chief places at feasts, they who devour widow’s houses and for a pretence make long prayers. These will receive greater condemnation.”

He continued His ministry to the common people by warning them against certain types of Scribe. A number were godly and wise men but many had become spiritually proud and self-seeking.

‘Long robes.’ This refers to the festal gowns of the day which were particularly ostentatious and possibly had longer tassels (long robes). At times like the Passover they walked around in them seeking the admiration of the people because of their obvious piety and importance.

‘To be saluted --.’ The people would hail them as ‘Rabbi’ (‘my great one’) with great respect, and they loved it and sought it, compare Matthew 23.7-12.

‘The chief seats.’ They sat in the special seats which were placed for them at the front of the synagogues facing the people where all could see them and admire them.

‘Chief places at feasts.’ They would sit there at the highest level so that even their compatriots would think that they were important, and sometimes had to face the humiliation of being ‘demoted’ (Luke 14.9). Like many they had come to think of themselves more highly that they ought to think. This is a common danger for men in any group where some are seen as more important than others (compare Romans 12.3), something which Jesus constantly warned against (10.42-44). So those who are called to serve in the church need to ask themselves whether their real aim is humble service, or whether it is to have a prominent place. If the latter they take up their position only in order to receive condemnation.

‘They who devour widow’s houses.’ Probably by abusing their generosity, although it may have included failure in trusteeship. Rabbis would be looked on as trustworthy executors, even though they were often poor. Widow’s could be especially vulnerable in the face of their religious grandeur and seeming piety, and easily persuaded to give hospitality (being ‘eaten out of house and home?’) or donations beyond their means, even possibly to the extent of giving their houses to subsidise the Temple worship. All who seek donations to a religious cause should heed this warning. It is true that the Rabbis were not allowed to receive money for teaching, but there were always ways round it for those who were unscrupulous. (This is in deliberate contrast with the widow who freely gave more than she could afford. But that was of her own free will, not because she had been manipulated).

‘And for a pretence make long prayers.’ Ever a danger in spiritual circles. They thought that the length of their prayers denoted the level of their spirituality. Instead it often demonstrated their arrogance and hypocrisy. Perhaps the long prayers were in order to impress the widows and play on their generosity.

‘These will receive greater condemnation.” They claimed to be teachers and therefore they have no excuse for their failure (compare James 3.1). Note the assumption of s degree of punishment greater than for ‘common people’, because they are using a pretence of piety in order to achieve unworthy ends.

The Poor Widow Who Gave More Than Everyone Else (12.41-44).

In contrast with the greed of some of the Scribes (verse 40), and the love of money of the rich young man (10.22), we now have drawn to our attention the generosity and self-sacrifice of a humble poor widow. Here was ‘true discipleship’ from one who was not yet a disciple. And the main point that comes out from it is that God sees her as having given more than everyone else because He measured all their giving by what they had left.

Analysis.

• a And He say down opposite the Treasury and watched how the crowd dropped money into the Treasury (41a).
• b And many who were rich dropped in large amounts (41b).
• c And there came a poor widow, and she dropped in two mites which make a penny (a few cents) (42).
• d And He called to Him His disciples, and said to them (43a).
• c “Truly I say to you, this poor widow dropped in more than all those who are dropping money into the Treasury” (43b).
• b “For they all dropped in out of what they had to spare” (44a).
• a “But she of her want did drop in all that she had, even all that she had to live on” (44b).

Note that in ‘a’ many threw gifts into the Treasury, but in the parallel only one threw in all that she had. In ‘b’ the rich dropped in large amounts, and in the parallel they did so out of what they had to spare. In ‘c’ the widow dropped in a tiny amount, and in the parallel she was seen as having dropped in more than all of them. Centrally in ‘d’ His message was directed at the disciples.

12.41 ‘And he say down opposite the Treasury and watched how the crowd dropped money into the Treasury, and many who were rich dropped in large amounts.’

‘The Treasury.’ This probably referred to the thirteen trumpet shaped receptacles which were placed against the wall of the Court of the Women, the actual closed box being presumably behind the wall. Each had a separate purpose. One was for the purchase of materials for sacrifices, one was for the upkeep of the Temple, and so on. Alternately it may have been an opening on the outside of the Treasury making possible gifts to the Treasury.

‘He sat down opposite -.’ He wanted to watch men as they gave so that He could bring home a lesson to His disciples from it. No doubt some of the richer walked up ostentatiously with large sums of money and publicly dropped them in. They were no better than the Rabbis previously described. They were buying publicity and respect, not giving to God. And then there were others, humbler and truly expressing gratitude to God.

12.42 ‘And there came a poor widow, and she dropped in two mites which make a fraction of a penny (a cent or two).’

And lastly there was a poor widow. No one apart from Jesus noticed the poor woman who crept unobtrusively up to the trumpets and dropped in her two mites, with no display at all (Mark uses a Roman term for the coins (‘quadrans’) which was commonly in use in Palestine). The ‘two should be noted. She could so easily have kept one. But she did not feel that she could withhold it from God. She knew, of course, that her gift was hardly worth noticing and would buy little, especially as compared with the magnificence of the Temple. Did I say no one would notice? Jesus noticed, and God noticed as well. Only two among so many. But what a two! And the trumpets of heaven blared, and the angels stopped what they were doing and looked at each other (even though the woman never knew). For here was a gift that was almost worthy of God. And no one else on earth ever knew, but she had laid up a rich treasure in Heaven. It is probable that there would be no food on the table for her next meal, but she would one day feed sumptuously at Messiah’s table (10.41). Note that in the section chiasmus this parallels the self-seeking of the disciples (10.33-35). No wonder Jesus now draws attention to it.

12.43 ‘And he called to him his disciples, and said to them, “Truly I say to you, this poor widow dropped in more than all those who are dropping money into the Treasury, for they all dropped in of what they had to spare, but she of her want did drop in all that she had, even all that she had to live on.” ’

There is a deliberate contrast here between the Rabbis who ‘devoured widows’ houses’ (verse 40), and the widow who unselfishly gave all that she had to God. There is also a contrast with the rich and wealthy ostentatiously giving their gifts (how else did Jesus know?) while she gave unobtrusively. And there is the verdict. That she was the one who gave the most. For God judges our giving, not by how much we give, but by how much we have left. She alone received the Messiah’s commendation. And although she did not realise it she was being watched by the One Who would Himself, by the offering of Himself, give more than any other ever could.

There is a further contrast. As they leave the spot the disciples will point out the splendours of the Temple. They had not been too impressed by the widow’s gift, but the Temple was something else. It had so taken up their attention that Jesus’ words had almost passed them by. However, God did not see things as they saw them. He was not concerned about the Temple. His gaze was still focused on the woman’s gift. For the fact was that while what the woman had given would last for ever in men’s memories and in the record of heaven, God would arrange for that splendid Temple shortly to be razed to the ground and become almost forgotten because it had rejected His Son.

IS THERE SOMETHING IN THE BIBLE THAT PUZZLES YOU?