CHAPTER 12
Mark 12:1-12. Parallel. Matt. 21, 33-46; Luke 20:9-19.
Mc12.1 So Jesus began to speak to them, parables. «A man planted a vineyard, surrounded it with a hedge, dug a winepress in it and built a tower, then he rented it to some vine-growers and left for another country. — So he began to speak to them in parables. «After silencing the tempters with wise questioning, the Lord demonstrates their malice through a parable,» Glossa. Jesus thus takes up the gauntlet thrown down by his adversaries and becomes the aggressor in turn. — Matthew 20:28–22:14, which has preserved three parables which were spoken by Our Lord on that memorable occasion: St. Mark mentions only one, that of the vineyard workers. But it is certainly the most significant and the most forceful. Moreover, in using the expression in parables, This clearly demonstrates that, as was his custom, he quotes Jesus' words in abbreviated form. A man planted a vineyard…All the details of this description are drawn, on the one hand, from the writings of the Old Testament, and on the other, from the viticultural practices of Palestine. See the Gospel according to St. Matthew, 21:33. The planting of God's spiritual vineyard had taken place under Joshua, when the theocratic nation was established by its sovereign Master in the land of Canaan. There, the Lord surrounded his people with manifold cares, analogous to the operations by which a vine grower protects and cultivates a vineyard. Then, after entrusting its direction to the supreme leaders who represented him, he went away to a distant country. «It wasn’t that he changed location,» Bede the Venerable aptly explains, “but he seemed to leave, to give the vinedressers complete freedom in their work.” Let us not forget that the very idea of the parable rests on these vinedressers and their conduct.
Mc12.2 When the time came, he sent a servant to the tenants to receive from them a share of the harvest. — When the time comes That is to say, at harvest time. «When the time of the fruit approached,» says St. Matthew. A servant. The servants sent successively by God to the vineyard owners to assert his rights as owners represent the Prophets of the Old Testament, who were indeed charged more than once with bringing back to the right path priests who had forgotten their most sacred duties. To receive from them his share of the fruits. This detail shows that the farmers in the parable were what are called sharecroppers in France, and that they paid their dues in kind, not in money. See Pliny for interesting details on this type of lease [Pliny the Elder, Epistola, 9, 37].
Mc12.3 But having seized him, they beat him and sent him away empty-handed. — they beat him In the Greek text, the verb's original meaning is "to flay"; but here it must be given the derived meaning of "to mistreat harshly," which the Vulgate adopted. In any case, it is a grave insult. And they sent him away empty-handed. empty from the point of view of the fruit he had come to look for.
Mc12.4 He sent them yet another servant, and they wounded him in the head and heaped insults upon him. — He sent them more…According to the first Gospel, the owner of the vineyard sent out two groups of numerous servants in succession. Cf. Matthew 21:34-36. According to the accounts of St. Mark and St. Luke, the delegations were more frequent and consisted only of individual servants, who came one after another to claim the owner's share from the tenants. This description is at once more picturesque, more natural, and more in keeping with the reality of the events. They wounded him in the head.Theophylact gives this paraphrase: "They inflicted all kinds of affronts upon him, which they carried to the extreme.".
Mc12.5 He sent a third, whom they killed; many others were also killed, some beaten, others killed by them. The first envoy was simply beaten, the second suffered more serious and insulting mistreatment, and the third was put to death: there is a gradation in the outrages. Many others. The sentence is elliptical. Since it would have been too lengthy to list each of the servants sent by the vineyard owner to his tenants, the parable is brief and summarizes, stating that numerous and frequent embassies followed one another in the same manner, but without any more success. What a long line of prophets God did not send to his people and the hierarchs to convert them! But most of them were treated horribly. Let us mention only the most famous: Elijah insulted by Jezebel, 1 Kings 19:2 (cf. 1 Kings 18:13); Micah imprisoned by Ahab, 1 Kings 22:24-27; Elisha threatened by Joram, 2 Kings 6:31; Zechariah stoned on the orders of Joash, 2 Chronicles 24:21; Jeremiah stoned by his compatriots in Egypt; Isaiah sawn in two with a wooden saw according to Jewish tradition, etc., etc.
Mc12. 6 The master had one only son left, who was very dear to him; he sent him to them last, saying to himself: They will respect my son. — an only son…This touching and delicate way of introducing the vineyard owner's son onto the scene is characteristic of St. Mark. Every word carries weight: an only son, who was very dear to him; he is no longer a servant, but a son, and this son is unique, and therefore beloved. On several occasions, in Mark 1:11 and 9:6, we have heard the voice of God call Our Lord Jesus Christ his «beloved son.» He sent it: without hesitation, although he knew beforehand what fate awaited him; but he sent him the last, as the least of all his ambassadors. Cf. Hebrews 1:2. After the warning Jesus gave to the Jews, there will be no other: the guilty will simply be condemned and punished. — The first six verses are the historical part of the parable, that is, the part that had already been fulfilled when Our Lord spoke to the Pharisees; verses 7-9, on the other hand, contain the prophetic part.
Mc12.7 But these tenants said to one another, "This is the heir; come, let us kill him and the inheritance will be ours.". As soon as they saw their master's son coming towards them, the winegrowers hatched a horrible plan, which would crown their previous atrocities. He is the heir. They act, as we see, with full knowledge of the facts. They know that the one who comes to them as a messenger of forgiveness is the son and the heir; but this is for them a further reason to put him to death. They hope, the fools, that the inheritance will then belong to them entirely.
Mc12.8 And they seized him, killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard. — They seized him and killed him. The preceding verse had us hearing the cynical and barbaric language of the winegrowers; this one shows them at work, carrying out their dreadful plan. This picture is truly tragic. And they threw him out of the vineyard. According to the other two accounts, the executioners had dragged their victim out of the vineyard before delivering the fatal blow; here, it is his corpse that they throw over the hedge that the owner had so carefully planted.
Mc12.9 Now what will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come, he will destroy the tenants and give his vineyard to others. — What will the master do?…Jesus addressed this question to his adversaries, so that they might formulate their own judgment. Cf. Matthew 21:40-41. The words that follow, He will come, and will destroy…, were therefore uttered by the Sanhedrin. They contained a terrible threat, announcing on the one hand that the vineyard would be violently taken from the treacherous vine-growers, on the other hand that these wretches would personally be the object of the owner's just vengeance: two points which were not long in coming to pass.
Mc12.10 Have you not read this passage of Scripture: “The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone”? 11 "The Lord did this, and it is marvelous in our eyes?"» — Application of the parable, using a biblical text that makes Jesus' thought both more solemn and more transparent. See the details in the Gospel according to St. Matthew, 21:42. This word from Scripture, this passage written in our holy Books [Psalms 117:22; Isaiah 28:16; Acts 4:11; Romans 9, [33; 1 Peter 2:7]. The hierarchs had answered very well; but perhaps they were unaware, or at least pretended to be unaware, that they themselves were the vinedressers in the parable, threatened, because of their unworthy conduct, with the Lord's most severe punishments. The Savior, through this well-known passage from a Psalm that everyone regarded as messianic, shows them that it was they whom he had in mind in his allegory. The cornerstone. Jesus is the cornerstone that unites two separate walls: «For the cornerstone joins together two walls that go in different directions. And what are more different than circumcision and Gentiles? These are two walls that come, one from Judea and the other from among the Gentiles, and they join to the cornerstone.»Saint Augustine d'Hippone, Sermo 88, 10.].
Mc12.12 And they sought to seize him, knowing that he had them in mind in this parable, but they feared the people and left him, they went away. — Description of the effect produced on the hierarchs by these last words of Jesus. It was like oil thrown on fire. Understanding then that the parable of the tenants singled them out, condemned them, they became furious, exasperated. They would have carried out without delay the dark plots they had long been hatching against Jesus, had a powerful obstacle not stopped them for the second time: they feared the crowd. See Mark 11:18; Luke 20:19. They therefore postponed the satisfaction of their revenge until a more opportune moment. In the meantime, they went away, without having learned what they wanted to know (see Mark 11:27 ff.), and after having learned what they would have preferred not to know.
Mark 11:13-17. Parallel. Matt. 22, 15-22; Luke 20:20-26.
Mc12.13 So they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to catch him in what he said. — Although shamefully rebuffed, and unable to resort to violence against their enemy at once, the Sanhedrin nevertheless still tried, through trick questions, to diminish his authority before the people. No longer able to appear in person after the humiliating scenes we have just recounted, they sent a delegation in their place, composed of Pharisees chosen from among their disciples (cf. Matthew 22:16) and a number of Herodians. See the note on the latter in Mark 3:6, and the Gospel according to St. Matthew 22:15. To surprise him…; in Greek, an expression that is evocative, for it literally means: «so that they might hunt him down» [Cf. Henri Étienne, Greek-French Dictionary, s. v. ἀγρεύω.]. St. Matthew uses a similar figure of speech («to surprise him».
Mc12.14 When they came to him, they said, «Teacher, we know that you are a man of truth and do not care about anyone, because you do not regard people’s appearances but teach the way of God in truth. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not? Should we pay or not?» — We know you are truthful… Nicodemus, one of the most illustrious members of the Great Council, had once addressed similar compliments to Our Lord (cf. John 3:2); but he spoke in all sincerity. Now, on the contrary, we hear only hypocritical flattery. «They questioned him with cunning words, and surrounded him like bees that bring honey to the mouth but a sting to the back» [Pseudo-Hieron, quoted in Catenary of Thomas]. — After this insidious preamble comes the question: Is it permissible to pay tribute to Caesar?…? Previously, traps had been set for the Savior in the religious sphere; this time, they tried to embarrass him on the dangerous ground of politics. There were therefore two successive questions, the first general and theoretical: Is it permissible to pay tribute to the Roman emperor? The second specific and practical: We, a theocratic people, will we pay this tax? This wording is unique to St. Mark. The Pharisees, enemies of Rome, and the Herodians, ardent supporters of the empire, thus presented themselves to Jesus as if they had argued on this delicate point without being able to agree, and as if they had come to establish him as the arbiter of their quarrel, ready to defer to his decision. But in reality, says Theophylact, «this statement was all artifice, and it had a precipice on either side; for if Jesus answered: We must pay the tax to Caesar, they stirred up the people against him, presenting them to him as wanting to reduce him to servitude; if he said on the contrary that it was not permitted, they accused him of stirring up the people against Caesar,» and the Herodians were there to hand him over to the Roman authorities.
Mc12.15 Knowing their treachery, he said to them, "Why are you tempting me? Bring me a denarius, so that I may see it."« — Knowing their treachery. This was indeed the work of consummate hypocrisy. St. Matthew and St. Luke use other expressions, "cunning, deceit," and "skill, trickery." These slight variations are interesting to study. Why are you tempting me? Jesus proves, by this saying, that he is not fooled by their malice. Bring me a penny. The verb bring me This seems to suggest that the tempting Pharisees did not have the requested denarius on them: such holy figures would undoubtedly have feared profaning themselves by habitually carrying in their purse a coin covered with pagan symbols and titles. But they only had to walk a few steps to ask one of the money changers in the temple.
Mc12.16 They brought it to him and he said to them, "Whose image and inscription are these?" "Caesar's," they said. — Whose image is this? The features engraved on the coin that Jesus held in his divine hands are well known to antiquarians and numismatists. One would be hard-pressed to find more beautiful ones, but one would also be hard-pressed to find more cruel ones among the numerous effigies of Roman emperors that have survived. And this inscription. This inscription was designed in the pompous style of Latin epigraphy: "Tiberius Caesar Divi Augusti filius, Augustus, Imperator, etc.".
Mc12.17 Then Jesus answered them, «Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.» And they were greatly astonished at him. — Jesus' thought is extremely clear. This denarius comes from Rome, he means, let it return to Rome. Its presence in Judea proves the rights of the Roman government over Judea; therefore, be faithful subjects of Caesar. Our Lord's answer, presented in this form, was not only indisputably true, but even the most fervent Zealots could find nothing to criticize in it. If the Jews had followed the advice it contained, they would have avoided a terrible war with Rome, the ruin of Jerusalem, the Temple, and their nation. And to God belongs what is God's.. If Caesar can demand that what belongs to him be returned, how much more does God have the right that man, made in his image and likeness, should not forget his duties towards him. — How much light is contained in these few words of Jesus! How many delicate relationships they could resolve, if anti-Christian policies were willing to be resolved? — Note that each of the two parties that came to tempt Jesus receives here the lesson that is appropriate to them. The Pharisees refused Caesar what was due to him; the Herodians gave very little to God: both are thus reminded of important duties. And they were very surprised.. Jesus spoke like a new Solomon: everyone rightly admires his wisdom.
Mark 12:18-27. Parallel to Matthew 22:23-33; Luke 20:27-40. St. Mark recounts this episode in almost the same terms as St. Matthew. We therefore refer the reader, for a detailed explanation, to our commentary on the Gospel according to St. Matthew, 22-23.
Mc12.18 The Sadducees, who deny the resurrection, They then approached him and asked him this question: — Sadducees ; This is consistent with the account in St. Luke, where we read: «Some of the Sadducees.» Naturally, it is only a delegation from the Sadducean party that we find at this moment confronting Jesus. On this powerful sect, placed, in the Judaism of that time, at the antipodes of the Pharisees, see the Gospel according to St. Matthew, 3:7. Those who deny the resurrection. The Sadducees were indeed the materialists of their time and country.
Mc12.19 «Master, Moses prescribed for us that if a brother dies, leaving a wife without children, his brother must take his wife and raise up children for his brother. — The Pharisees had posed two questions to the Savior, one dogmatic (Mark 11:28) and the other political (Mark 12:14): the Sadducees bring the discussion back to the realm of dogma. The trap they, in turn, set for the Savior is first cleverly masked by them behind an order from Moses (v. 19), then even more cleverly concealed under a case of conscience that they invent for the occasion and which they propose with great wit (vv. 20-23).
Mc12.20 Now, there were seven brothers; the first took a wife and died without leaving any children. 21 The second man then took her and also died without leaving any children. The same thing happened to the third., 22 And each of the seven took her and left no children. After all of them, the woman also died. — After reminding Jesus of the «law of Levirate marriage» as decreed by Moses [Deuteronomy 25:5-10], the Sadducees demonstrate in a striking manner that, according to them, it is completely incompatible with the dogma of the resurrection. — There were seven brothers. This anecdote is recounted by St. Mark with great liveliness and rapidity: the details also receive in his narration some more complete developments than in the other two Gospels.
Mc12.23 Well, in the resurrection, "When they are resurrected, whose wife will she be? For all seven had her as their wife."» — The seven brothers would indeed have equal rights over the woman in question.
Mc12.24 Jesus answered them, «Are you not mistaken because you do not understand the Scriptures or the power of God? — The frivolous Sadducees had thought they could create an inextricable difficulty for Jesus with this reductio ad absurdum argument, which strangely concluded their moral dilemma. But it is they, and not he, who will find themselves humiliated. Aren't you mistaken?…? A turn of phrase characteristic of St. Mark. It is a question in the manner of the Hebrews, intended to express a strong affirmation. Without directly answering the question posed by his adversaries, Our Lord does not hesitate to tell them that they have fallen into a truly enormous error, and this as a result of their profound ignorance: on the one hand, they do not know the Holy Scriptures, and on the other hand, they do not have an accurate idea of the omnipotence of God.
Mc12.25 For, once raised from the dead, men do not take wives, nor women husbands, but they are like the angels in the sky. — Returning to his assertion in verse 24, Jesus demonstrates its truth through two arguments, each corresponding to one of its two parts. once resurrected from the dead… Men don't take women…Here below, marriage was instituted to perpetuate the human family, which, without it, would soon die out; but in heaven, where there will be no voids created by death, this institution will have no reason to exist. The Sadducees are therefore mistaken in taking the facts of this life as a model for what will take place in the life to come, as if God could change nothing in the present state of humankind. They are like the angels. These words contain one of the rare positive revelations we have received about our nature in the afterlife. We could not wish for anything more honorable.
Mc12.26 And touching the resurrection Have you not read in the book of Moses, at the Passing of the Burning Bush, what God said to him: I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? 27 He is not the God of the dead, but living people. So you are quite mistaken.» — Second argument, and proof that the Sadducees are ignorant of the Scriptures. If they knew the Bible better, wouldn't they know that it contains very striking texts in favor of the resurrection, in particular the one where the Lord calls himself the God of the three illustrious founders of the Jewish nation? Would God, wishing to assume a glorious title, really have called himself the God of a few bones reduced to dust for centuries? That would be what would have to be said if the Sadducees were right. But no, on the contrary, they are grossly mistaken. Jesus reiterates this to them at the end of his argument. They had relied on the name and authority of Moses to embarrass the Savior: he invokes the same name and the same authority to refute and confound them. — The expression passing through the bush, The name, common to St. Mark and St. Luke, has often been misunderstood. It does not refer to the famous place near which God appeared to Moses, but to the place of the Exodus where the text quoted by Our Lord is found. It must therefore be linked to "read," and not to "said." The ancients, not yet having divisions into chapters and verses, could only refer the listener or reader to a specific passage in the books they quoted by an indication drawn from the subject, one of its main circumstances, etc. This is how the Jews gave to chapter 3 of the Exodus, In Ezekiel 1:15-28 and 2 Samuel 1:17-27, we find the names Bush, Chariot, and Bow. Compare Romans 11:2, where Saint Paul uses the words "in the story of Elijah" to refer to the section of the Holy Scriptures concerning Elijah. Certain parts of Homer's poetry are often indicated in the same way.
Mark 12:28-34. Parallel to Matthew 22:34-40: Mark's account is much more complete here than Matthew's. It abounds in new details, sometimes so new that the rationalist camp cried out against the contradiction. We will examine this accusation later.
Mc12.28 One of the scribes, who had overheard this discussion, seeing that Jesus had answered well, approached him and asked, "Which is the first of all the commandments?"« — One of the scribes… Picturesque details. This Scribe, mingling with the crowd, had attended, if not all the discussions that Jesus had just held against his adversaries, at least the last one, vv. 18-27. Charmed by the young Doctor's answers, he respectfully approaches him and in turn asks him a delicate question, hotly debated in the Jewish schools (see the Gospel according to St. Matthew, 22, 35): What was the first of all the commandments?.
Mc12.29 Jesus answered him, «The first of all is this: Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 You shall therefore love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength. This is the first commandment. — To the doctor's question, Jesus responds in the simplest way possible, with a quote from the Bible. You ask me what the first commandment is. To tell you, I need only remind you of a saying of Moses: Listen, Israel; the Lord your God…These introductory words, which only St. Mark preserved, are famous in Judaism, where they have become like the popular and condensed expression of the faith of Israel. They are called the Shema (שמע, listen): they are the opening words of the morning and evening prayers, and Jews like to repeat them as an exclamation: Shema Yisrael. [Moses Schwab, Treatise on the Berachot, p. 177.] And you shall love the Lord your God…If there is only one God, we must love Him unconditionally, with all the power of our soul. This is what the long list of names forcefully expresses. with all your heart, etc. In the passage from Deuteronomy quoted by Jesus, we find only three nouns: מאד, נפש, לב, heart, soul, and strength. The Septuagint translates the second and third exactly; it renders the first as "spirit, mind." Our Lord, according to St. Mark, combined the text and the translation, adding a fourth noun borrowed from the latter: your strength. St. Matthew omits it. — Everything in man must therefore love God: the heart first, since it is the organ of love ; but also the soul and the spirit, that is to say, the intellectual faculties; but also strength, that is to say, the sum of our energies and powers. See Theophylact, hl.
Mc12.31 The second one is similar to it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. There is no greater commandment than these.» — The Savior was asked for only one commandment, and here he mentions two. But there exists between the precept of love of God and that of the fraternal charity such cohesion, that they in reality form only one and the same commandment, which is the alpha and omega of the Law.
Mc12.32 The Scribe said to him, «Well, Master, you have spoken the truth, that God is unique and that there is no other besides him, 33 And to love Him with all one's heart, with all one's mind, and with all one's strength, and to love one's neighbor as oneself, is more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.» The Scribe had admired Jesus' previous answers; this one struck him no less by its truth and its goodness. He therefore first offered Our Lord public praise. Then, not content with publicly approving his decision, he repeated it emphatically., that there is only one God… and that we must love him…, adding a conclusion, …something bigger…, which shows that he has very well grasped its meaning and scope. He too freely quotes the text of Deuteronomy, for he inserts into the series of human faculties that must love God «intelligence» (translated here as spirit), just as Jesus had inserted «strength».
Mc12.34 When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, «You are not far from the kingdom of God.» And no one dared to ask him any more questions. — In the words addressed to the Scribe by Our Lord, You are not far from the kingdom of God, De Wette and other exegetes want to see this as an understatement, but they are wrong; indeed, this Doctor of the Law, although he had shown very sympathetic feelings toward the person of Jesus, did not yet believe in his messianic and divine nature, which was necessary to be part of the Kingdom of God. Nevertheless, the preceding scene has sufficiently shown that he was on the threshold of the Church, and that he had only one step left to take to become a citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven. Hence this encouraging word, by which Jesus urges him to acquire what he lacks and to become a complete Christian: «If you are not a stranger, come in. Otherwise, you will be proven to be one.» — Let us now come to the difficulty we announced at the beginning of this episode. Do St. Matthew and St. Mark not contradict each other? According to the first Gospel, the Scribe is openly presented as an enemy of Jesus: «When the Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together, and one of them, a lawyer, questioned him to test him» (Matthew 22:34-35). In the second Gospel, on the contrary, not only does this Scribe appear to have no hostile intentions, but he admires Our Lord (v. 28), he heaps praise upon him (v. 32), and deserves to be praised in turn. Is this not both yes and no on the same point? Certainly, for anyone who seeks and wants to find contradictions in the Gospel accounts, the variants we have just pointed out will provide one that can be argued without much difficulty; but we deny that it exists for serious, impartial minds, free from dogmatic prejudices. The two accounts can easily be reconciled by saying that the Evangelists consider the incident from two distinct points of view. What struck St. Matthew most of all was the motive that brought the Scribe to Jesus: in fact, he presented himself to set a trap for Our Lord; we see him acting first of all as the champion of the Pharisees, although he shared neither all their hatred for Jesus nor all their narrow-minded ideas about religion. It is precisely this commendable aspect of the Doctor, his impartiality, the courage with which he recognized the truth, that St. Mark wanted to highlight. Hence the different tones of the two narratives. But, by bringing these disparate features together, we obtain a very unified picture, where everything fits together perfectly. And no one dared ask him any more questions.Such was the result of these numerous attacks launched one after another against the Savior by his enemies. They ended in complete failure for them. Once so audacious, they were now intimidated, silenced. Who would now dare to challenge Him who had thus triumphed over the priests and rabbis?
Mark 12:35-37. Parallel. Matt. 22, 41-46; Luke 20:41-44.
Mc12.35 Jesus, continuing to teach in the temple, said, «How can the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David? — Jesus, continuing to teach. All of Jesus' adversaries remain silent. He speaks for him, only to make their defeat more complete. He first humiliates them by posing a problem they are incapable of solving (vv. 35-37); then he warns the people against these hypocritical leaders (vv. 38-40). The scene thus continues to unfold under the temple galleries, therefore in front of the crowd, which the preceding discussions had drawn to Jesus and his enemies. This feature is unique to St. Mark. How do the scribes say…That is to say: «How can the scribes claim that Christ is the son of David?» Note the difference here between the accounts in the first and second Gospels. Contrary to the norm, St. Matthew is the most vivid and complete; he describes the incident as a dialogue that took place between Jesus and the Pharisees. St. Mark is brief and presents the event as if it were a simple question addressed to the people by Our Lord concerning the teaching of the scribes. St. Luke’s account falls somewhere between the two.
Mc12.36 For David himself speaks thus by the Holy Spirit: The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet. — David himself. The pronoun "himself" is emphatic. The same is true in the following verse. David, speaking in Psalm 109 (108 according to the Hebrew) as an inspired prophet, and giving the Messiah the title "My Lord," does he not contradict the assertion of the Scribes? Is it possible, in fact, to be both someone's son and Lord? This is the objection raised by Jesus. See the detailed explanation in the Gospel according to St. Matthew, 22:43.
Mc12.37 David himself calls him Lord, how then can he be his son?» And the large crowd enjoyed hearing him. — So how is he his son? Renan dares to assert that Our Lord Jesus Christ, through this argument, repudiates, as far as he is concerned, any claim to a Davidic origin. Another rationalist, M. Colani, was either more insightful or more sincere when he said: «This reasoning of Jesus is not a frivolous and subtle argument, intended to throw the Scribes in turn into embarrassment, as they have tried to do to him on several occasions. It is not a sophist's trick. Relying on a passage from a psalm, which he interprets as the Scribes themselves do, he declares that the Messiah must be infinitely greater than a David, than a temporal king» [Thimothée Colani, Jesus Christ and the Messianic Beliefs of His Time, p. 105]. Indeed, infinitely greater, since he is truly the Son of God. This is the key to the enigma: David calls Christ his Lord, although he must have been his son according to human nature, because he must also share in the divine nature. Thus, the Scribes are not wrong, and the royal prophet is right. The large crowd enjoyed listening to him. A beautiful detail, found only in the second Gospel. The extremely large crowd had gathered around Jesus. The people, who so readily grasp the meaning of truth and divinity, were thus charmed by the Savior's eloquence, hanging on his every word, as they say. The Pharisees had, however, intended to turn them against Jesus; the opposite occurred.
Mark 12:38-40. Parallel. Matt. 23, 1-36; Luke 20:45-47.
Mc12.38 He also told them in his teaching: «Beware of scribes who like to walk around in long robes, to receive greetings in public squares, 39 the best seats in the synagogues and the best places at feasts: — «After refuting the Scribes and the Pharisees, Jesus burns, as if with fire, these arid models» [Saint Jerome of Stridon, in Matthew]. A burning fire, indeed, which reduces to ashes the mask of Pharisaical holiness. But St. Mark has preserved only a short extract of the long discourse, riddled with anathemas, that we read in St. Matthew (see the Gospel according to St. Matthew, 23:1). Jesus’ indictment of the Pharisees was less important for the readers of the second Gospel than for those of the first. Nevertheless, the few lines quoted by our Evangelist summarize very well the Savior’s thought, presenting us with the most salient and characteristic vices of the proud, avaricious, hypocritical sect. In his teaching. See Mark 4:2. Beware of scribes. That's the watchword. Beware of your teachers. Beware of their bad examples, which could lead you astray. The details that follow justify this recommendation from Jesus and explain the reason for this ostracism. Who love… The Savior first attacks Pharisaical pride. Four picturesque scenes show us the proud Scribes in search of all kinds of honors. Walking around dressed in long dresses. The "stola" was a type of long, flowing robe, formerly worn in both the West and the East. The Pharisees liked to make this garment large, in order to better attract public attention. To be greeted in the public square. These vain individuals wanted everyone to bow deeply before them. They had even passed decrees to that end. — They also needed the best seats in the synagogues, the best couches at banquets, that is to say, the most honorable places in assemblies, whether sacred or secular.
Mc12.40 Those who devour widows' houses and ostentatiously offer long prayers will suffer a harsher condemnation.» — Jesus secondly condemned the avarice of the Scribes. Who devour the homes of widows. A crime already quite revolting in itself, but further aggravated by a circumstance that added the malice of sacrilege, under the pretext of long prayers. — They will face a harsher sentence.. God, if it is permissible to speak thus, will be verbose in his judgment of the Scribes, just as they pretended to be in their impure prayers.
Mark 12:41-44. Parallel. Luke 21:1-4.
Mc12.41 Having sat down opposite the trunk, Jesus observed how the people threw money into it; many rich people put in large sums. — The Evangelist first describes the situation. What a vivid picture he paints in just a few words! The temple and its courtyards, Jesus sitting under the portico, the motley crowd of pilgrims who come to throw their alms into the collection boxes: it is a whole world that St. Mark thus places before our eyes. Having sat down. Having finished his speech, Our Lord withdrew from the crowd and came to rest on one of the benches placed in the pagans' courtyard. Opposite the Trunk. The word "gazophylacium," formed from the Greekized Persian word γάζα, meaning treasure, and φυλάσσειν, meaning to guard, was used to designate sometimes the treasury in the temple [cf. Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, 19, 6, 1], and sometimes the offering boxes located in the various courtyards. Here, it has this second meaning. It was opposite one of these boxes that Jesus was sitting at that moment. Jesus considered He watched attentively, examining the scene before him. How the crowd threw money into it…The foreign Jews, who had come to Jerusalem in large numbers for Passover, took turns bringing their voluntary alms. Many rich people threw a lot of it away. There is a visible emphasis in these words. One would think one was seeing these rich people ostentatiously dropping their generous offerings into the collection box.
Mc12.42 A poor widow came and put in two small coins, together worth a quarter of an as.— But what an antithesis! Here, in the midst of the crowd, comes a poor widow who also wants to give something for the temple. «One» and «poor» are clearly contrasted with «many rich people» in verse 41. The following words, put two small coins there, These are likewise contrasted with "threw a lot of them." But what are these coins (in Latin, a "minutum," or better yet a λεπτὸν, since that is the expression used in the Greek text)? St. Mark explains this to his Roman readers, saying that two lepta were equivalent to the Latin quadrans. Now, the "quadrans" was, as its name indicates, a quarter of an as, and the as was worth only 1/16 of a denarius. A denarius was a day's wages.
Mc12.43 Then Jesus called his disciples to him and said to them, «Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. — Jesus, calling his disciples. Jesus did not want to let this fine example pass without drawing a lesson for his disciples. It was for this reason that he called them to him. This poor widow gave more… «It is said of the widow that she gave more than all, not if you consider the size of the offering, but charity and the destitution of the poor woman. For the two small coins of the poor widow were worth more than the millions of the rich man. And she showed more love for God by giving him the only coins she had left to live on than the rich man showed with his immense sum of money.» Maldonat. It is therefore by comparison and in a relative way that Jesus attributes to the widow's mite a value greater than the rich offerings of the other donors. Who put in the trunk. People continued to bring their alms under the watchful eyes of Jesus and the Apostles.
Mc12.44 For they all contributed from their surplus, but this woman gave from her poverty, everything she possessed, everything she had to live on.» — The Savior now explains his astonishing assertion. The others gave from their abundance, from their surplus; this poor widow, on the contrary, gave from her poverty. Thus, more or less something remained for the others; for this widow, absolutely nothing remained. Everything she owned She didn't even reserve a lepton for herself. All she had to live on is an emphatic apposition to Everything she owned. The Greek literally means "all his life." — A great lesson emerges from this gracious episode, with which the public ministry of Our Lord Jesus Christ so sweetly concludes: "Not how many, but how much." Many souls have understood this. From heaven, as in the temple courtyard of old, Jesus sees and blesses these poor people, who demonstrate great generosity. God weighs intentions far more than the sheer quantity of our offerings; he considers less the substance of our sacrifice than the generous disposition of the one who offers it.
