Mark 11:27-12:12 | Session 46 | Mark Rightly Divided
----------
Mark 11:27-33 | A Question Of Authority
Verse 27 -
Having arrived in Jerusalem (their destination) after the discussion on faith, Jesus arrives at the Temple and is confronted by "the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders." He was on their territory, so to speak, and they were not happy about it. More than anyone, these are the decision-makers for the country in terms of official religious decisions.
Verse 28 -
The question was one of authority, designed as a trap. If He claimed it on His own authority, He was claiming to be God. If He claimed it on God’s authority, He was claiming to be the Messiah. If He claimed no authority, He would be considered unauthorized and likely accused of working for Beelzebub.
What is interesting is that "these things" they were concerned about were not questioned. This implicitly testifies that Jesus' miracles were absolutely accepted as true, even by the greatest skeptics Jesus had.
Verses 29-30 -
Rather than answer the question, Jesus came with a “trap question” of His own. He made a deal with them (likely not giving them time to consider the implications) that He would answer their question if they answered His. Since the leadership likely had no real authority to insist on an answer from Jesus—Jesus wasn't on trial after all—He knew He had some bargaining power. His question concerned the baptism of John: “from heaven, or of men?” Jesus understood so well that they wouldn’t answer this question that He even insisted, “answer Me.”
This interaction helps us understand the character of Jesus, not as a pushover, but as One with backbone. By posing a counter-question, Jesus demonstrated His wisdom and authority, showing that He could not be easily manipulated or trapped by the religious leaders. His ability to turn the situation around and put the leaders on the defensive highlights His assertiveness and strategic thinking. Jesus was not afraid to challenge the established authorities and stand firm in His position, showing all who were watching that He possessed both moral and intellectual strength.
Verse 31 -
The minds of the leaders immediately began to spin. They knew they were stuck. If they proclaimed John’s authority to be from God, they would be caught not believing him who came from God.
This gives us some insight into the politics of the day. The country's leadership had rejected the most vocal and successful messianic leader of the time. But, as we will see in the next verse, they had kept this to themselves.
It is no surprise that if you reject John, you would also reject Jesus.
Verse 32 -
Having rejected John, we see that they did it with stealth because the widespread acceptance of John was so strong that they did not want to address this issue. It was a political grenade.
This situation illustrates that the will of the majority rarely means anything in human societies. It is virtually always the will of a single individual or an oligarchy that prevails. In this case, the religious leaders, despite the widespread acceptance of John by the people, chose to reject him and, consequently, Jesus. This demonstrates how political and religious power can often override popular opinion.
The popularity of John also shows us that the crucifixion later in the week will have to be done secretly, quickly, and with well-planned precision.
Verse 33 -
It must have deeply pained the leaders to admit, "We cannot tell." These were perhaps some of the most difficult words they ever had to say. Their refusal to answer left them vulnerable, and because of this, Jesus was able to respond, "Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things."
The phrase "we cannot tell" essentially means "we do not know." However, the King James translators provided deeper insight by choosing "we cannot tell" instead of "we do not know." This choice captures the most accurate and profound meaning of the phrase. The leadership knew, but they were not about to tell.
Mark 12:1-12 | The Parable of the Vineyard
Verse 1 -
Jesus shifted to speaking in parables. Recall that He does this when He wants to communicate a truth, but saying it outright would cause distractions, which He does not want at the time.
The key items and players in the parable of the vineyard are:
The “certain man” who planted the vineyard - a reference to God
The vineyard - almost certainly a reference to Israel
The hedge - likely an allusion to the law
A place for the winefat - likely an allusion to the future bounty of the vineyard
A tower - signifying the protection of the vineyard from enemies
The husbandmen - almost certainly a reference to the leadership of Israel
The “far country” - an allusion to the departure of Jesus from them that would come during the time of the kingdom offer.
Verses 2-3 -
Though this is a parable, with a singular main point rather than a type with complete parallel between all events, it is interesting that Jesus points out that the husbandman came "at the season." According to Leviticus 19:23-24, the first three years of a new vineyard were not to be harvested, so the "season" would be the fourth year, assuming that the Lord is not simply referring to the annual season. From all that we can surmise, Jesus has been presented to Israel as the Messiah for three full years and is somewhere approaching the fourth since the time of the ministry of John the Baptist. Whether this is directly tied to that or not is difficult to know.
In any event, the servant was caught, beat, and sent away empty handed.
Verses 4-5 -
These verses explain the continued desire of the husbandman to send servants to gather His harvest. However, each of the servants was shamefully treated with stoning, wounding in the head, etc. Note that the critical texts all omit the reference to stoning. This likely makes the connection to any specific instance, if intended, difficult to judge.
Verses 6-8 -
As the parable continues, the Lord speaks of His "one Son, His well-beloved." The husbandmen believed that "they will reverence My Son." However, they decided to kill the Son in order to gain control of the vineyard.
By now, the parable hits close to home. The hearers must have known that Jesus was answering the previous question ("who gave Thee this authority to do these things?" - Mk. 11:28), but in a roundabout way. Like the story Nathan shared with David, it was a parable that hit too close to home.
Verse 9 -
The Lord asked a rhetorical question and immediately gave the answer. Contrary to views of the character of Christ, the answer was not love and forgiveness, but rather justice swiftly and strongly delivered.
The fact that the husbandmen would be destroyed was not only a message to the leadership but to anyone involved in the stewardship of the Lord’s vineyard. Being complicit in the matter would place one in the same category.
The Lord would “give the vineyard unto others.” This should not be taken to mean that Israel was no longer part of God’s plan. Recall that Israel is the vineyard. Therefore, the issue is giving it to other leadership.
Verses 10-11 -
The Lord recites Psalm 118:22-23, which Peter later quotes in Acts 4:10-12, about the builders rejecting the chief cornerstone. This brought the meaning of the parable into perfect focus.
Verse 12 -
Knowing exactly what Jesus was saying and to whom He was saying it, the spineless windbags "sought to lay hold on Him, but feared the people." Unable to do anything at that point, they left Him... but surely everyone knew the story was not over.
