Mark 12:35-44 | Session 49 | Mark Rightly Divided
To download this outline, click here: https://humble-sidecar-837.notion.site/Mark-12-35-44-Session-49-Mark-Rightly-Divided-c3f501caee1c4470b0a10382d1c9bebe?pvs=4
Mark 12:35-40 | Jesus Teaching in the Temple
Verse 35
Jesus was teaching in the temple, but it's important to understand the setting. This wasn't taking place in a modern-style auditorium with a podium. Instead, the teaching likely occurred in the temple's vast courtyard.
The temple complex had an enormous open area where large crowds could gather. This spacious courtyard provided an ideal location for Jesus to address the people. Without the constraints of a formal indoor structure, the potential audience size was considerable.
Jesus posed a question to the people concerning a doctrine taught by the scribes. The specific scribal doctrine in question was "that Christ is the Son of David." This illustrates an important point about the nature of doctrine.
It's noteworthy that the phrase "son of David" doesn't appear verbatim in the Hebrew Scriptures. Instead, it's an interpretation derived from various biblical passages. This highlights a crucial aspect of doctrine: all doctrine, without exception, is interpretive.
When Scripture plainly teaches something explicitly, it's considered a foundational revelation rather than a doctrine. For instance, the fact that Christ died and rose again is a foundational truth. However, there are numerous doctrines of atonement that interpret the significance and implications of this event.
In this case, Jesus uses this doctrine, which is correct in its interpretation of Scripture (compare Matt. 1:1) to show the hypocrisy of the scribes, who had a correct messianic doctrine and yet were rejecting the Messiah Himself.
Verses 36-37 -
Jesus' statement "David himself said by the Holy Ghost" is insightful. In just seven words, Jesus strongly affirms two crucial points about the authorship of Psalm 110:
1. Davidic Authorship: Jesus explicitly attributes the psalm to "David himself." This direct attribution contradicts modern theories like the Documentary Hypothesis, which often question traditional authorship claims.
2. Divine Inspiration: By stating that David spoke "by the Holy Ghost," Jesus affirms the divine inspiration of Scripture. This aligns with the biblical concept of God-breathed Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16).
These words challenge modern critical theories that suggest most of Scripture was written by anonymous scribes, often with errors and omissions, rather than by the traditionally attributed authors. Jesus' statement supports the view that Scripture was written by those attested within its pages, under divine guidance.
This brief yet powerful assertion by Jesus serves as a strong counterpoint to skeptical approaches to biblical authorship and inspiration. It underscores the reliability and divine origin of Scripture, particularly in relation to messianic prophecies like Psalm 110.
A second interesting point is that Jesus attributes the writing to "the Holy Ghost." The writing of Psalm 110 predates the Day of Pentecost by centuries, and Jesus' statement here was made almost two months before Pentecost. This challenges the common belief that the Holy Spirit's operation began exclusively at Pentecost.
In fact, Jesus' words here affirm that the Holy Spirit was active long before the events in Acts 2. This aligns with other Old Testament references to the Spirit's work (e.g., Numbers 11:25, 1 Samuel 10:10). What began at Pentecost was not the Spirit's work or influence, but rather a new manifestation of His gifts in the lives of believers.
Jesus draws attention to a significant point in Psalm 110:1, where David refers to the Messiah as "my Lord." This creates an intriguing tension between the concepts of "son" and "Lord." As a son, the Messiah would be subordinate to David, but as Lord, He would be superior.
The scribes, it seems, were fixated on the idea of a Messiah who was merely "their boy" - a powerful but ultimately human figure who would serve their nationalistic aspirations. They wanted a Messiah they could control or manipulate for their own ends. In doing so, they missed the fuller picture of the Messiah as "Lord," someone who would have authority over them and demand their allegiance.
These verses end by the insight that "the common people heard him gladly" (v. 37). This is more of a reference to crowds than status. The "elite" were the ones rejecting the messiahship, while the throngs of people accepted Him as Lord and Messiah. And this is exactly why the elite didn't like Him.
Verses 38-40 -
Jesus presents His own "doctrine," which is to "Beware of the scribes" (v. 38). He explains that they are full of pretension and self-importance, yet they "devour widows' houses" (v. 40). This refers to their abuse of the legal system to take advantage of widows, who had little recourse.
Jesus states, "these shall receive greater damnation" (v. 40). This reminds us that the gospels do not contain the message of the dispensation of God's grace, where sins are not imputed due to a "by grace through faith" offer of reconciliation. Preachers often say, "the ground at the foot of the cross is level ground," which is a grace-age truth, but passages like v. 40 do not teach this. We can only conclude that either the ground at the foot of the cross is not level, or these expressions of severe differences indicate a dispensational difference.
Mark 12:41-44 | The Poor Women with a Greater Offering
Verse 41 -
The Temple treasury was a crucial part of the Temple complex in Jerusalem, serving multiple purposes for the Jewish people. It was not only a place for Jews to fulfill their legal obligations to the Temple but also an area where they could make voluntary contributions for special causes.
The primary function of the Temple treasury was to collect the mandatory half-shekel tax that every adult male Jew was required to pay annually for the upkeep of the Temple. This tax was based on the commandment in Exodus 30:13-16.
Beyond these legal dues, the Temple treasury also served as a repository for voluntary contributions. These could include freewill offerings, votive offerings (gifts promised to God in fulfillment of a vow), and donations for special causes or projects related to the Temple's maintenance and beautification.
While we don't have extensive archaeological evidence about the exact location and design of the Temple treasury in the Second Temple period, we can glean some information from historical sources and biblical references:
Location: The treasury was likely located in the Court of the Women, which was accessible to both men and women. This area was also known as the Treasury (John 8:20).
Design: According to the Mishnah (Shekalim 6:1), there were thirteen trumpet-shaped collection boxes in the Temple court. These were called "shofarot" because of their shape, reminiscent of the ram's horn (shofar).
Operation: Each collection box was designated for a specific type of offering or purpose. Priests would regularly empty these boxes and count the money, ensuring proper allocation of funds for various Temple needs.
Verse 42 -
The unnamed but often-mentioned widow brought "two mites." The word used is λεπτός (leptos), which is worth 1/8 of the χαλκός (chalcos) mentioned in verse 41. The text tells us that two of them are worth "a farthing." The word "farthing" derives from "fourthing," or "cutting into fourths," which is why two mites were worth one farthing. Though "farthing" is not used in American English, it is the most accurate English word available as the translation of κοδράντης (kodrantes), which literally means one-quarter—in this case, a fourth of the brass coin previously mentioned.
In modern translations, most opt for phrases like "two small copper coins, which amount to a cent" (NASB), or "two small copper coins, which amount to a penny" (ESV). They do this to be more relevant to modern society, but in doing so, they lose the sense of the actual relative value of the widow's gift compared to the gifts given in verse 41.
Verses 43-44 -
The Lord provides an enduring application: this woman gave more than all the others, not in absolute terms, but in relative ones. While the others would return home to abundance, this woman would not. The others might have been fulfilling obligations, but this woman had no legal duties under the law. The others may have sought prestige or status, but this woman—in her mind—would never attain such things.
