Marcos 12
A.T. Robertson · Citado em PreceptAustin
Marcos 12
Robertson - It was a solemn climax to this last public appearance of Christ in the temple when Jesus poured out the vials of his indignation as he had done before (Matt. 6:12; Luke 11:12; 15–18).
Marcos 12
Robertson says a wine press "is the vessel or trough under the winepress on the hillside to catch the juice when the grapes were trodden."
Marcos 12
Robertson writes "It was a straight shot, this parable of the Rejected Stone (Mk 12:10f.) and the longer one of the Wicked Husbandmen (Vine-Grower). There was no mistaking the application, for he had specifically explained the application (Matt. 21:43–45). The Sanhedrin were so angry that they actually started or sought to seize him, but fear of the populace now more enthusiastic for Jesus than ever held them back. They went off in disgust, but they had to listen to the Parable of the King’s Son before going (Matt. 22:1–14)." Understood (1097)(ginosko) describes intelligent comprehension and thus even these otherwise spiritually blind religious leaders had their eyes opened to fully understand the personal ramifications of Jesus story. It reminds me of the story of the prophet Nathan who confronted David after his sin with Bathsheba (2 Sa 12:1-6) and tells him a story of injustice to which David reacts, at which point Nathan says "You are the man!" (2 Sa 12:7). Nathan went on to reveal the consequences of David's sin (2 Sa 12:7-12) David's response to the exposure of His sin was different than the religious leaders, for "David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the LORD.” And Nathan said to David, “The LORD also has taken away your sin; you shall not die." (2 Sa 12:13) Warren Wiersbe makes an interesting practical application - When the rulers rejected John the Baptist, they sinned against the Father who sent Him. When they crucified Jesus, they sinned against the Son. Jesus had told them that they could sin against Him and still be forgiven, but when they sinned against the Holy Spirit, there could be no forgiveness (Matt. 12:24-37). Why? Because that was the end of God's witness to the nation. This is the so-called "unpardonable sin," and it was committed by the Jewish leaders when they finally rejected the witness of the Spirit of God through the Apostles. The evidence of their rejection was the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7:51-60). Then the Gospel went from the Jews to the Samaritans (Acts 8) and then to the Gentiles (Acts 10). In this parable (Lk 20:9-19), Jesus illustrated the insidious nature of sin: the more we sin, the worse it becomes. The tenants started off beating some of the servants and wounding others, but they ended up becoming murderers! The Jewish leaders permitted John the Baptist to be killed, they asked for Jesus to be crucified, and then they themselves stoned Stephen. They sinned against the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and that was the end of God's witness to them. It is a serious thing to reject the message of God and the messengers of God (see John 12:35-43; Heb. 2:1-4). (Bible Exposition Commentary).
Marcos 12
Robertson adds "“First” and “great” in Greek do not differ essentially here." Geddert - The question is not about chronology (which was given first?) and not strictly about priority (which is more important than the others?). It has more to do with centrality. Which commandment is at the heart of the law? Which commandment makes the keeping of all the others both possible and meaningful? Which commandment determines the proper application of all the others? (Mark Believers Church Bible Commentary) Swete says: “The Lord is not asked to select one commandment out of the Ten, but to specify a class of commandments, or a particular commandment as representative of a class, to which priority belongs.” Akin comments that "The rabbinic tradition had isolated 613 commandments in the first 5 books of the Bible, the Torah. 365 were negative and 248 were positive. Some were “light” making less demand, while others were viewed as “heavy” with severe repercussions for disobedience. Jesus himself appears to acknowledge this in Matt 5:19 where he says, “Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” So this scribe asked Jesus to “declare Himself.” Our Lord gladly obliges and His answer takes us to the core of what really matters in life, what is of supreme importance. (Mark 12:28-34 Two Great Commandments, Two Great Loves) MacArthur on 613 commandments - “Well why would they come up with a number like that? Six-hundred and thirteen, why?” Because that’s how many letters there were in the Decalogue. If you took the Ten Commandments in Hebrew, there’s 613 letters so they said there had to be 613 laws. Pretty silly, but that’s some of the rabbinical nonsense. (Sermon Loving God) Alan Carr: Of these laws, 248 are considered positives in nature while 365 are considered to be negative. That is, some compel men to do certain things while others forbid men from certain activities. Hiebert has a similar comment - The scribe desired to know what kind of commandment was to be ranked in the highest place, what quality made a commandment of principal importance. While holding that all commandments were binding, the rabbis attempted to formulate a basic principle from which the rest of the law could be deduced as a corollary. The question of what commandments were “heavy” or “light” was much discussed. The rabbis counted 613 different commandments, 365 negatives and 248 positive. But their comparative importance was much debated. The scribe desired Jesus to indicate a principle of classification. (The Gospel of Mark: An Expositional Commentary)
Marcos 12
Robertson - Mark alone has this item. The Sanhedrin had begun the formal attack that morning to destroy the influence of Jesus with the crowds whose hero he now was since the Triumphal Entry. It had been a colossal failure. The crowds were drawn closer to him than before. William Kelly asks "“How are the these two things to be put together, the lower truth with which the scribes were occupied, and the higher one on which the Holy Ghost specially insists?" Akin - The Messiah is not simply David’s son, he is David’s sovereign. He is not just David’s son, 4 he is God’s Son who reigns as King seated at His Father’s, His heavenly Father’s, right hand. David’s words will not work if Messiah is just a human being. He must be more. This is where Jesus is trying to take them. This is what they had failed to see. Tragically, they still don’t see it. (Mark 12:28-34 Two Great Commandments, Two Great Loves) Geddert - Jesus’ argument depends on clearly separating between the two appearances of the word my in the verse he quotes. The first refers to David, the author, who speaks of my Lord. The second refers to God, whom David is quoting: Sit at my right hand. It also depends on clearly separating between two occurrences of the word Lord. The first refers to God (Yahweh). The second refers to the Messiah (the one who sits at God’s right hand). Jesus interprets the verse, The LORD [= Yahweh, God] says to my lord [= David’s lord, the Messiah], “Sit at my (God’s) right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.” (Ps. 110:1) The Messiah is thus David’s Lord, sitting at God’s right hand until God wins the victory over all the enemies of the Messiah. This much seems clear. But why does Mark include this incident? Is he denying that the Messiah is also David’s son? Probably not, for Son of David is an acceptable designation for the Messiah (cf. Mark 10:47–48). More likely he is critiquing the view that the Messiah is merely David’s son and not also David’s Lord. The Messiah far surpasses David’s greatness, reigning as king over an entirely different order (cf. Mark 14:61–62; 15:2, 18, 26, 32). In this text, Jesus is not directly claiming to be the Messiah. Deffinbaugh - Psalm 110 confronts the Israelite with a very perplexing problem, a problem which is central and foundational to the Israelite leaders’ rejection of Jesus as the Christ. The Psalm clearly teaches both the humanity of Messiah (a son of David) and His deity (David’s Lord). This was the fundamental problem which the leaders of Israel had with Jesus. If you could sum up the grievance of the Jewish leaders with Jesus, I believe it would be this: ALTHOUGH JESUS WAS MERELY A MAN (in the eyes of the Jews who rejected Him), HE HAD THE AUDACITY TO ACT LIKE GOD