345. ANSWERING HIS OPPONENTS
"And no man after that durst ask him any questions"
The Jewish leaders were seething with hatred toward Jesus. He had openly pointed out their weaknesses by parable and they "perceived that he spake against them" (Mk. 12:12).
They were determined that Jesus must be destroyed and in a way which appeared to be right in the eyes of the people. They thought up three questions. They were sure that if he attempted to answer them he would be sure to say something that they could use to dishonour him in the eyes of the people so they could arrest him. So they came to Jesus feigning sincerity but in reality they were hypocrites (Matt 22:18) and spies (Lk. 20:20).
The aim of this lesson is to show how complete was the wisdom of Jesus when he was tried by the rulers of the Jews.
Mark 12
QUESTION 1: TRIBUTE TO CAESAR OR NOT? (Mk. 12:13-17).
The Pharisees came with the Herodians. They were political op ponents but they overlooked their differences in order to destroy a common enemy € one they considered a greater threat to themselves than they were to each other! The Pharisees were proud, self-righteous and fiercely patriotic. They hated the Romans and despised those who supported them, such as the Herodians and tax-gatherers, like Mat thew (Mk. 2:16). They paid taxes with great reluctance, for their understanding of the Law forbad it. The Herodians were loyal to Herod's rule and Rome, and they paid taxes and encouraged others to do so. Thus when they came together to Jesus with this question of im portance: "Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar or no?" there was an air of genuineness.
They flattered his fearlessness: "Master, we know thou art true and carest for no man: for thou regardest not the person of men: but teachest the way of God in truth". Why did they do this? Because they expected a "No" answer so that they might accuse him before the governor (Lk. 20:20). But if they received instead a "Yes" answer, then the Pharisees would be able to expose him as unpatriotic. They insisted on a "Yes" or "No" answer: "Shall we give, or shall we not give?" They could conceive no way in which Jesus could possibly escape the trap they thought was hidden in their question.
But their underlying purpose and pretence was obvious to the perceptive Son of God: "he knew what was in man", and without fear of man he cut through their hypocrisy and revealed their motive: "Why tempt ye me? bring me a penny that I may see it"
Jesus had seized the initiative: there was no hesitation in his ap proach to the question: the Romans had come into Judea because it was God's will and tribute had been laid upon the people. It was not a matter of "shall we give?" € they had no choice.
A penny or denarius was at length given him. He then asked them a question, the answer to which gave them their answer from their own lips, "Whose is this image and superscription?" They replied, "Caesar's!" The head of Tiberius, the Emperor of the Roman Em pire, was emblazoned on one side, while on the other side was the in scription "Pontifex Maximus" (meaning of Pontifex Maximus - Head priest ) for Tiberius sought to have his subjects revere him as a god!
Jesus' answer was simple, logical and yet profound. In it he resolv ed for all time the question of divided loyalties. "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's" (v.17).
They marvelled! Well they might, for they could neither accuse him before the governor nor expose him as unpatriotic to the Jews? They had showed him a sovereign coin with Caesar's image stamped on it. Plainly it belonged to Caesar and it was only right that it should be given back to him.
But there were certain things which belonged to God and which they had received from Him. These € love, life and worship € the best things in life € had come from God, and ought to be "rendered" to Him. They could not be purchased with money (Isa. 55:1-2; 1 Pet. 2:19). Instead of going about to kill Jesus, they needed to return to God the love which He had shown in sending His only begotten Son into the world to redeem the world. They had been fashioned in the image and likeness of God to reveal His glory (Gen. 1:26, 27; 1 Cor. 11:7). Were they rendering service to Him? Were they concerned about pleasing Him who had created them? Were they trying to develop characters after the image of their Saviour? They were about to crucify him! Exposed, ashamed and frustrated, they went away.
QUESTION 2: THE RESURRECTION AND MARRIAGE (Mk. 12:18-27).
Then came the Sadducees € a class of people who disbelieved the resurrection and only accepted the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible, in which they saw no direct reference to the resurrection (Acts 23:8). They had a question which they thought was very clever and certain to embarrass anyone who believed in the resurrection. But instead the weakness of their own position was exposed, and that from the Pentateuch itself! They posed the question of a woman being mar ried to seven brothers in turn, each one dying before any children could be born: "In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife".
Imagine the smooth way in which this question would be put, and the look of smug satisfaction on the faces of these "wolves in sheep's clothing". How quickly their expressions changed! Jesus was direct and to the point: "Do ye not therefore err!" They had never been spoken to like that before. They were not used to any of the "common" people challenging their statements, much less accusing them of error in their interpretation of law. But they "knew not the scriptures, nor the power of God" and Jesus proceeded to demonstrate this to them (Mk. 12:24-25).
First of all they had wrong ideas about the Kingdom and marriage. Marriage had been primarily designed in the beginning for the multiplication of godly men so that the earth would be populated by man and subdued (Gen. 1:26-27). In later times in Israel the object of marriage was the procreation of a godly seed (Mai. 2:15; Ezra 9:2). But in the Kingdom such seed will be glorified and given authority with Christ (Rev. 5:9-10). The purpose of marriage, therefore, so far as the saints are concerned, will have been fulfilled. Corruption can not inherit incorruption: mortality, marriage and procreation will form no part of the lives of those who through the resurrection "will be made equal to the angels, able to die no more" (Mk. 12:25; Lk. 20:34-36). It was because the Sadducees were carnally-minded and ig norant of the scriptures that they were so far astray.
Jesus then took the opportunity to teach them a fundamental doctrine out of their own law: "As touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spoke unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?" They had not comprehended the implications of this statement. So great were the three fathers of Israel in God's estimation that even though they were dead and long since buried He spoke of them as though they were alive. He had chosen to be known by their names and His pro mise was to them (Heb. 11:16; Gen. 17.7). This meant that they would be resurrected by His power, which Jesus said they did not understand. Yahweh is the living God and is willing that none should perish. So those who die and are loved by Him will surely live again, and the gateway to life is the resurrection: "He is not the God of the dead but of the living" (v.27; cp Rom. 4:19). In any case the promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob included possession of the Land of Canaan forever (Gen. 13:15). Abraham died without possesing it (Acts 7:5; Heb. 11:13), and so his inheritence is yet future. Thus the resurrection is taught by promising something that entails it.
Their ignorance was therefore very great: "Ye therefore do greatly err" (v.27).
QUESTION 3: WHICH IS THE GREATEST COMMANDMENT? (Mk. 12:28-34).
The Sadducees were silenced, but the Pharisees returned again to the attack. One of them, who was also a scribe and lawyer, perceived the force of Jesus' comments and thoughtfully asked a searching question (v.28; Matt: 22:35). Jesus recognised this man as a basically genuine enquirer (v.34), so when we read in Matthew 22:35 that he "tempted" Jesus, it is apparent from the context that it was a trial without malicious intent.
Jesus took his stand from Old Testament revelation and answered, "Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord: and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength" (vv.29, 30). Because God is an undivided unity, He must be worshipped with undivided devotion: He will not share His singular glory with graven images (Isa. 42:8), or any other form of devotion (Col. 3:5). Because He is an indivisible unity, all creation must eventually be brought into Oneness with Him (1 Cor. 15:58). We must dedicate whole-heartedly every faculty to the service of God € our thoughts, words and deeds.
Jesus did not let the matter rest there. The profession of love for God was easy to make, but Jesus added a test whereby the profession could be tried to see if it was genuine. If a man truly loves God he will also love his fellow man: "the second is like", he said, "namely this, thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself". It was here that the hollowness of their profession to love God could be seen (vv.38-40). Disregard for the poor and the widows, coupled with self-centred pi ety, revealed quite plainly that the Pharisee loved neither God nor man but himself. Jesus said the two commandments were inseparable and John links them together in the same way: "he who loveth God loveth his brother also" (1 Jn. 4:21). Our love or otherwise of our fellows, then, provides a telling test of whether we are Christ's disciples, and there is much need for self-examination of our attitude and actions.
The Scribe answered in agreement and made a comparison between the relative values of love and sacrifice. He knew, like Samuel, that love and obedience were more important to God than sacrifice, which might be made with an evil heart (1 Sam. 15:22-25; Hos. 6:6; Mic. 6:6-8; Psa. 40:6-8; Prov. 15:8). Jesus commended his answer and commented that he was not far from the Kingdom of God.
CHRIST € THE SON OF GOD (Mk. 12:35-37).
The divine wisdom of the Lord had been revealed and all had been silenced. Jesus then put a question to them, "How say the scribes that Christ is the Son of David", when David himself addresses him as "Lord" (Psa. 110:1)? Perceiving the implications of the question, they refrained from answering. In Israel sons were always considered subordinate to their fathers. This would have especially been the case with David, the Lord's anointed and the greatest king of Israel. Thus the apparent anomaly of David addressing his son as Lord threw into relief his superior descent: David's son was David's Lord because he was also the Son of God (2 Sam. 7:14). It was this that they were un willing to acknowledge, for then they would have been bound to ac cept Jesus' claims, teaching and authority. They were aware that he was recognised as the son of David (e.g. Mk. 10:47) and that a number of times Jesus had claimed to be the Son of God, and that his miracles evidenced this (Jn. 8:42, 54; 10:24-25, 36-38). With stubborn blind ness the rulers refused to accept him as God's Son, but the common people heard him gladly.
THE WEALTH OF THE POOR (Mk. 12:41-44).
Jesus denounced the rulers for ostentatious piety, their devotions which were calculated to receive the applause of men, and their show of giving (cp. Matt. 6:2). He was boldly speaking near the Temple treasury where he could see the "rich cast in much". Then in contrast he noticed a poor widow cast in a mere two mites! On the surface it appeared that her offering was miserly, while the rich seemed generous. But Jesus declared the opposite to be the case: they had cast in "of their abundance," but, though it amounted to little, she had cast in more, even all she had!
Her example, in a certain sense, bears upon the three incidents of the day.
- She was too poor to be troubled by taxation. She paid what she ow ed and what was left over she gave to God. Her wants did not mat ter.
- She was a widow € of the class whose houses were devoured by the rich (Mk. 12:40)! She depended upon God and waited patiently for a better day.
- Her whole life € "all her living" € was devoted to God, as the first commandment required. Jesus commended her but rebuked the hypocritical Pharisees.
LESSONS FOR US:
- Jesus could have heaped disgrace upon his interrogators but instead he treated their questions seriously and in each case drew out the question of the utmost worth.
- Our approach to the Word of God must be sincere and stimulated by a wholehearted desire to serve Him and not ourselves. We must not "put on a show" like the Pharisees did before the Lord Jesus Christ.
- Material possessions can be a blessing in our lives if used correctly. They can also be a snare to us. We should not covet them or allow them to occupy our whole time.
- God is still the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and we can share in the inheritance of those faithful men by putting our trust in their seed, the Lord Jesus Christ, and by being baptised into his name (Gal. 3:27-29). A life lived then in obedience to God will inspire within us a love not only of God, but of each other. We will be keen
to spread the "Good News" to others and help them attain to the same glorious goal that we have.
€ We do not have to be rich in order to serve God. God has chosen the poor in this world who are rich in faith to be heirs of His Kingdom (Jas. 2:5).
REFERENCE LIBRARY:
"The Story of ihe Bible" (H.P. Mansfield) € Vol. 11, Pages 71-88
"Nazareth Revisited" (Robert Roberts) € Chapter 49
"A Life of Jesus" (M. Purkis) € Book 7, Chapter 7
PARAGRAPH QUESTIONS:
- How did Jesus prove from Psalm 110 that he was the Son of God?
- What did Jesus mean when he said that the poor widow had cast in to the treasury more than all?
- How does the statement "I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob" prove the resurrection?
- What did Jesus mean when he said, "Render to Caesar the things that be Caesar's and to God the things that are God's" (Mk. 12:17)?
ESSAY QUESTIONS:
1. When Jesus was tried by the Jewish rulers on the matters of: €
- giving tribute to Caesar;
- the Resurrection; and
- the first commandment;
he answered them seriously and drew out the principles of the ut most worth. Discuss these principles.
- Discuss the answer of Jesus to the question, "Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar or not?" and comment on its application to you.
- What is your understanding of the two greatest commandments that Jesus cited when asked what was the first commandment of all?
- How did Jesus answer the Sadducees' question about the resurrec tion relating to the woman who was given to seven brothers in turn as they died?