Mark 12, Part One

The parable of the vinedressers (vs. 1-12)—This material is found in Matthew 21:33-46, and Mark’s account is substantially the same. Here is what I wrote at that location. Again, the scripture references are from Matthew: “A landowner planted a vineyard, leased it to vinedressers, and went into a far country. At harvest time, he sent his servants to the vinedressers to receive the fruit. The vinedressers abused them all—“beat one, killed one, and stoned another” (v. 35). The landowner sent more servants, but “they [the vinedressers] did likewise to them” (v. 36). Finally, the landowners sent his son, “saying, ‘They will respect my son.” (v. 37). But the vinedressers killed him, thinking they could receive the inheritance. “Therefore,” Jesus asked His listeners, “when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do with those vinedressers?” (v. 40). And the response was the expected and correct one: “'He will destroy those wicked men miserably, and lease his vineyard to other vinedressers who will render to him the fruits in their seasons" (v. 41). Jesus then made the application: “Have you never read in the Scriptures, 'The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone. This was the LORD'S doing, And it is marvelous in our eyes’?” (v. 42). The kingdom of God would be taken from them and “given to a nation bearing the fruits worthy of it” (v. 44). The parable is pretty clear. The “landowner” is God, the “vinedressers” are the Jews, and the “servants” are the Old Testament prophets. The “son,” of course, is Jesus. Since the Jews never heeded God’s message through the prophets or Jesus, they would not be the leading citizens in the kingdom. And that “stone” which the builders rejected is Jesus, of course. The religious leaders got the point: “Now when the chief priests and Pharisees heard His parables, they perceived that He was speaking of them” (v. 45). But there was nothing they could do at the moment, “because they [the multitudes] took Him for a prophet” (v. 46). Jesus never lost His popularity with the masses; that’s why He had to be tried at night, illegally, and put on the cross before the people found out what was going on.”  One final clarification:  the "nation bearing fruits worthy of it" (v. 44) were Gentiles, i.e., the Lord's church would largely be filled with Gentiles, not Jews, which is true to this very day.

The question regarding taxation (vs. 13-17)—From Matthew 22:15-22: “The Pharisees sent some Herodians to Christ “that they might entangle Him in His talk” (v. 16). The “Herodians” were a political party following the Herods, who were Roman lackeys governing parts of Judea. The question they ask, “Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?” (v. 17), was a trap—the Jews didn’t believe they should pay taxes to a foreign power. They got this from Deuteronomy 17:14-15, which says, "When you come to the land which the LORD your God is giving you, and possess it and dwell in it, and say, 'I will set a king over me like all the nations that are around me,' you shall surely set a king over you whom the LORD your God chooses; one from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not set a foreigner over you, who is not your brother.” Some of the Jews deduced from this that they should never pay tribute to another nation, which, of course, they had been required to do, frequently, in their history, and were under the same compulsion in Jesus’ time because of the Romans. Still, the question was ingenious. If Jesus took the common Jewish view that “no, you shouldn’t pay taxes to Caesar,” then He would be in trouble with the Romans. If He said, “yes, do pay,” then He could lose influence with the masses who hated the Romans. So, frankly, the Pharisees/Herodians didn’t care how He answered. Except they got the one answer they didn’t expect: “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's" (v. 21). How could anybody argue with that answer? Incidentally, Jesus knew it was a trap and exposed it as so: “Why do you test Me, you hypocrites?” (v. 18). He wanted others who were listening to understand what was going on.” Again, Mark’s account is virtually identical, so there’s really nothing to add.

I will make one point here, however. If Mark and Matthew (and often Luke) all record the same material, then…why? Why such repetition? Confirmation is the easiest answer. Obviously, the more people who report on an event, the greater the credibility. But there comes a point beyond which no more confirmation is needed. If people won’t believe in Jesus based on the testimony found in the New Testament, then piling more on isn’t going to help. Matthew, Mark, and Luke—and sometimes John—simply substantiate each other. There are minor variations in some of the accounts, but this is to be expected from human authors; indeed, it would be suspicious if there were not such disparities. No two, or three, humans will describe an event in exactly the same way. And though the Holy Spirit is the ultimate author of all of the Bible, He did use humans in the process and guided them to write as they normally would. How He did this is unknown. The mystery of inspiration is far from fully understood, and never will be this side of eternity.