HolyStudy
Home
Bible
Read BibleTopicsReading Plans
Worship
Worship of the DayDaily PrayersSaint of the DayChurch Calendar
Tradition
EncyclopediaChurch FathersSaintsCouncilsCreedsHeresies
ReflectionsConnection Map↗Support HolyStudy
HolyStudy
ReflectionsConnection Map↗Support HolyStudy
Sign in
HolyStudy

Read the Scriptures and pray with the mind of the Church.

Bible

  • Read Bible
  • Topics
  • Reading Plans

Worship

  • Worship of the Day
  • Daily Prayers
  • Saint of the Day
  • Church Calendar

Tradition

  • Encyclopedia
  • Church Fathers
  • Saints
  • Councils
  • Creeds
  • Heresies

More

  • Reflections
  • Mission
  • Support HolyStudy
  • Contact
  • Connection Map ↗
© 2026 HolyStudy
PrivacyTerms
HolyStudy
Home
Bible
Read BibleTopicsReading Plans
Worship
Worship of the DayDaily PrayersSaint of the DayChurch Calendar
Tradition
EncyclopediaChurch FathersSaintsCouncilsCreedsHeresies
ReflectionsConnection Map↗Support HolyStudy
HolyStudy
ReflectionsConnection Map↗Support HolyStudy
Sign in
Gospels
History
Pauline Epistles
General Epistles
Apocalypse

Mark 12

And he began to speak to them in parables. “A man planted a vineyard and put a fence around it and dug a pit for the winepress and built a tower, and leased it to tenants and went into another country.

When the season came, he sent a servant to the tenants to get from them some of the fruit of the vineyard.

And they took him and beat him and sent him away empty-handed.

Again he sent to them another servant, and they struck him on the head and treated him shamefully.

And he sent another, and him they killed. And so with many others: some they beat, and some they killed.

He had still one other, a beloved son. Finally he sent him to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’

But those tenants said to one another, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’

And they took him and killed him and threw him out of the vineyard.

What will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the tenants and give the vineyard to others.

Have you not read this Scripture: “‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone;

this was the Lord’s doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes’?”

And they were seeking to arrest him but feared the people, for they perceived that he had told the parable against them. So they left him and went away.

And they sent to him some of the Pharisees and some of the Herodians, to trap him in his talk.

And they came and said to him, “Teacher, we know that you are true and do not care about anyone’s opinion. For you are not swayed by appearances, but truly teach the way of God. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? Should we pay them, or should we not?”

But, knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, “Why put me to the test? Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.”

And they brought one. And he said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said to him, “Caesar’s.”

Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they marveled at him.

And Sadducees came to him, who say that there is no resurrection. And they asked him a question, saying,

“Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife, but leaves no child, the man must take the widow and raise up offspring for his brother.

There were seven brothers; the first took a wife, and when he died left no offspring.

And the second took her, and died, leaving no offspring. And the third likewise.

And the seven left no offspring. Last of all the woman also died.

In the resurrection, when they rise again, whose wife will she be? For the seven had her as wife.”

Jesus said to them, “Is this not the reason you are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God?

For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’?

He is not God of the dead, but of the living. You are quite wrong.”

And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, “Which commandment is the most important of all?”

Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.

And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’

The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

And the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher. You have truly said that he is one, and there is no other besides him.

And to love him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.”

And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And after that no one dared to ask him any more questions.

And as Jesus taught in the temple, he said, “How can the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David?

David himself, in the Holy Spirit, declared, “‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet.”’

David himself calls him Lord. So how is he his son?” And the great throng heard him gladly.

And in his teaching he said, “Beware of the scribes, who like to walk around in long robes and like greetings in the marketplaces

and have the best seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at feasts,

who devour widows’ houses and for a pretense make long prayers. They will receive the greater condemnation.”

And he sat down opposite the treasury and watched the people putting money into the offering box. Many rich people put in large sums.

And a poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which make a penny.

And he called his disciples to him and said to them, “Truly, I say to you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the offering box.

For they all contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, all she had to live on.”

Scripture quotations marked “ESV” are from the ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®), © 2001 by Crossway. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

← Previous chapterNext chapter →

Mark 12

The Jerusalem controversy sequence reaches its climax in a series of confrontations that expose the religious establishment's failure while revealing Jesus as the fulfillment of everything the temple represented. The wicked tenants parable is transparent: the vineyard of Isaiah 5 is Israel, the servants are the prophets, the son is Jesus, and the tenants are the leaders who know the heir and kill him anyway — the stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone. The tribute-to-Caesar question (designed to trap Jesus between Roman loyalty and Jewish nationalism) receives the most brilliant answer in the controversy sequence: give to Caesar what is Caesar's (what bears his image belongs to him) and to God what is God's (what bears God's image — human beings — belongs to God). The Sadducees' resurrection question is answered by correcting both their knowledge of Scripture and their knowledge of God's power: in the resurrection people neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like angels, and God's present-tense self-identification as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob proves the resurrection — he is God of the living, not the dead. The greatest commandment double answer (love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength; love your neighbor as yourself — on these two hang all the law and the prophets) receives the scribe's genuine agreement and the commendation that he is not far from the kingdom of God. The Psalm 110 question about how the Messiah can be both David's son and David's Lord silences the establishment for the last time. The widow's two coins close the chapter: she gave out of her poverty — all she had to live on — while the teachers of the law who devour widows' houses make lengthy prayers.

Mark 12:39

And have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets — the most important seats and places of honor complete the status-performance description: positions that communicate importance rather than serving function. The synagogue seats of honor (facing the congregation) and the banquet seats of honor (near the host) are visible signals of status that the teachers of the law seek rather than avoid.

Mark 12:1

Jesus then began to speak to them in parables: a man planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a pit for the winepress and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and went away on a journey — the vineyard parable draws directly from Isaiah 5:1–7, the song of the vineyard in which God's vineyard is Israel. The specific elements — wall, winepress, watchtower — appear in Isaiah 5:2, and every listener would have recognized the allusion. The vineyard is God's investment in Israel; the farmers are the leaders of Israel entrusted with its care; the owner who goes away on a journey is God whose patience has been long but is not infinite.

Mark 12:2

At harvest time he sent a servant to the tenants to collect from them some of the fruit of the vineyard — the harvest-time servant collection is the first in the series of missions that will be rejected. The servants represent the prophets: Israel's history is the history of God sending prophets to call his people to fidelity and the people rejecting, mistreating, and killing the prophets (cf. Nehemiah 9:26, Jeremiah 7:25–26, 2 Chronicles 36:15–16).

Mark 12:3

But they seized him, beat him and sent him away empty-handed — the first servant is seized, beaten, and sent away without fruit. The sequence of rejection escalates through the parable: beat (first servant), wound in the head (second), killed (third and subsequent). The escalating violence against the owner's representatives mirrors the escalating rejection of the prophets throughout Israel's history.

Mark 12:4

Then he sent another servant to them; they struck this man on the head and treated him shamefully — the second servant receives worse treatment: wounded in the head and treated shamefully. The escalation communicates that the tenants are not merely negligent but actively and increasingly hostile to the owner's claim on the vineyard's fruit.

Mark 12:5

He sent still another, and that one they killed. He sent many others; some of them they beat, others they killed — the third and subsequent servants are killed. He sent many others — the prophetic series is comprehensive: the many others summarizes the entire history of prophetic rejection. Some were beaten; others were killed. The historical catalog is accurate: Zechariah son of Jehoiada (2 Chronicles 24:21), Urijah (Jeremiah 26:23), and the tradition of prophetic martyrdom that runs through Israel's history.

Mark 12:6

He had one left to send, a son, whom he loved. He sent him last of all, saying, they will respect my son — the son's sending is the escalation beyond the servants: not another prophet but the son, the beloved (agapēton, the same word as at the baptism and transfiguration — you are my beloved Son). The owner's reasoning (they will respect my son) is not naive but the expression of what should be the response to the son's higher authority. The self-evident claim of the son's greater dignity is precisely what the tenants will violate.

Mark 12:7

But the tenants said to one another, this is the heir. Come, let's kill him, and the inheritance will be ours — the tenants' logic is the logic of murderous greed: kill the heir and the property passes to us (through adverse possession or some similar expectation). The recognition of the son (this is the heir) is the most damning detail: they know who he is and kill him anyway. The chief priests and teachers of the law who hear this parable know that Jesus is speaking about them (verse 12) — and they know that they know who he is.

Mark 12:8

So they took him and killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard — the killing of the son is described simply and completely: took, killed, threw out. The throwing out of the vineyard (outside the city) is an anticipation of Jesus' crucifixion outside Jerusalem (Hebrews 13:12: Jesus suffered outside the city gate). The sequence took/killed/threw out inverts the resurrection pattern (died, buried, raised) but will be reversed by the owner's response.

Mark 12:9

What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others — the owner's response is the parable's judgment oracle: he will come himself (the personal return that the servants' missions anticipated), destroy the tenants (the judgment on Jerusalem that the 70 CE destruction fulfilled), and give the vineyard to others (the extension of the kingdom community to the Gentile mission). The judgment is precise and the transfer is complete.

Mark 12:10

Haven't you read this passage of Scripture: the stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone — the citation of Psalm 118:22 (the same psalm sung at the triumphal entry) applies to Jesus the reversal promised in the psalm. The stone the builders rejected is the stone the builders considered unsuitable, useless, beneath consideration for a load-bearing role. The cornerstone (or capstone) is the most critical stone in the structure — the one everything else aligns with. The son rejected and killed becomes the cornerstone of what God is building.

Mark 12:11

The Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes — Psalm 118:23 is the continuation: the stone's transformation from rejected to cornerstone is the Lord's doing, not human achievement. Marvelous in our eyes acknowledges that the reversal exceeds what human calculation could have predicted or produced. The resurrection of the killed son/stone is the marvelous divine action that transforms rejection into cornerstone.

Mark 12:12

Then the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders looked for a way to arrest him because they knew he had spoken the parable against them. But they were afraid of the crowd; so they left him and went away — the Sanhedrin's response confirms that the parable was understood as Jesus intended: they knew he had spoken it against them. The comprehension that produces murderous intent (arrest) is balanced by the political constraint (fear of the crowd) that prevents it. They go away — temporarily. The parable has described exactly what they are about to do.

Mark 12:13

Later they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus to catch him in his words — the Pharisees and Herodians alliance (first mentioned in Mark 3:6 as the conspirators planning to kill Jesus) reappears as the political trap-setters. To catch him in his words: the Greek (agreuō) is the word for trapping wild animals. The tribute question is a snare designed to destroy Jesus politically regardless of how he answers.

Mark 12:14

They came to him and said: teacher, we know you are a man of integrity. You aren't swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it lawful to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not? Should we pay or shouldn't we? — the flattery is transparent but the question is genuine in its danger: yes means collaboration with Rome and alienation from the crowd; no means sedition against Rome and the basis for an arrest. The tribute question (the denarius tax for the poll tax) was deeply resented by Jewish nationalists.

Mark 12:15

But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. Why are you trying to trap me? he asked. Bring me a denarius and let me look at it — the naming of their hypocrisy (hypokrisin) is the first response: he sees through the flattery and the trap. The request for the denarius is the second move — making them produce the coin that his answer will be about. The one who denies using Roman coins must produce one.

Mark 12:16

They brought the coin, and he asked them, whose image is this? And whose inscription? Caesar's, they replied — the image (eikōn) and inscription (epigraphē) on the coin identify it as Roman property. The image of Caesar on the coin communicated Caesar's claim of ownership: the coin belongs to Caesar because it bears his image. The question is simple; the answer is unambiguous; the implication will be devastating in its simplicity.

Mark 12:17

Then Jesus said to them, give back to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's. And they were amazed at him — the answer deconstructs the false binary of the question. The tribute question assumes you must choose between Caesar and God; Jesus' answer says: give each what belongs to each. Caesar's coin with Caesar's image belongs to Caesar — return it. But what bears God's image (human beings, Genesis 1:26–27) belongs to God — give that to God. The answer is simultaneously a political teaching (civic obligations are real) and a theological challenge (are you giving yourself — God's image — to God?).

Mark 12:18

Then the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question — the Sadducees enter the controversy sequence. They accepted only the Pentateuch as authoritative and rejected the pharisaic and popular belief in resurrection (which they saw as lacking clear Pentateuchal support). Their question is designed to demonstrate the absurdity of resurrection belief through a case study that makes resurrection logically unworkable.

Mark 12:19

Teacher, they said, Moses wrote for us that if a man's brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother — the Sadducees begin with the levirate marriage law of Deuteronomy 25:5–10 — the law designed to preserve a dead man's lineage by having his brother marry his widow. The law is real and the obligation was taken seriously in ancient Israel.

Mark 12:20

Now there were seven brothers. The first one married and died without leaving any children — the seven-brothers scenario is a constructed case designed to maximize the absurdity of resurrection in the context of levirate marriage. The repetition through seven brothers is the reductio ad absurdum: the levirate law requires that each brother marry the widow, producing a situation in the resurrection that is supposedly impossible to resolve.

Mark 12:21

The second one married the widow, but he also died, leaving no children. The same thing happened with the third — the pattern is established: marry, die, no children. The repetition through seven communicates the artificial construction of the scenario — seven is the number of completeness, and the Sadducees are constructing the most complete possible reductio.

Mark 12:22

In fact, none of the seven left any children. Last of all, the woman died too — the woman outlives all seven husbands and then dies herself, maximizing the complexity of the question. In the resurrection, which of the seven husbands is she married to? The scenario assumes that resurrection must reproduce the current order of marriage relationships — an assumption Jesus will immediately challenge.

Mark 12:23

At the resurrection whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her? — the punchline question exposes the Sadducees' assumption: they are imagining resurrection as the resumption of current-life arrangements. The impossibility they see (she cannot be wife to seven simultaneously) is based on the assumption that marriage persists through the resurrection unchanged. Jesus' answer will challenge the assumption, not the resurrection.

Mark 12:24

Jesus replied, are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? — the double diagnosis: not knowing the Scriptures and not knowing the power of God. The Scriptures contain the answer if rightly interpreted; the power of God makes the answer possible. The Sadducees' reductio fails on both counts — they have misread Scripture and underestimated what God can do.

Mark 12:25

When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven — the resurrection state is not the resumption of the current order but a transformed existence. Neither marry nor be given in marriage: the institution of marriage belongs to this age's conditions (procreation, companionship in mortality, the continuation of family lineage). In the resurrection age, these conditions are transcended. Like the angels in heaven: the resurrection state is comparable to the angelic, not in the sense of becoming angels, but in the sense of a transformed existence beyond the current age's categories.

Mark 12:26

Now about the dead rising — have you not read in the book of Moses, in the account of the burning bush, how God said to him, I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? — the Pentateuchal argument for resurrection is drawn from Exodus 3:6, the text the Sadducees themselves accept as authoritative. The present tense of the divine self-identification is the key: I am (not I was) the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob — spoken centuries after their deaths.

Mark 12:27

He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken — the argument: if God defines himself in relation to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob using the present tense, then they must be alive in some meaningful sense from God's perspective. The God who says I am their God cannot be the God of people who simply no longer exist. He is not the God of the dead but of the living — the God of covenant relationship maintains that relationship through death. You are badly mistaken: the Sadducees' rejection of resurrection is not a sophisticated reading of the Pentateuch but a fundamental misreading.

Mark 12:28

One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, of all the commandments, which is the most important? — the scribe's question is asked not as a trap (unlike the Pharisees, Herodians, and Sadducees) but apparently as genuine inquiry stimulated by the quality of Jesus' previous answers. The greatest commandment question was a standard topic of rabbinic discussion — the attempt to find the principle that encompasses all the others.

Mark 12:29

The most important one, answered Jesus, is this: hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one — the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) is the foundational confession of Jewish faith, recited twice daily. Jesus begins the greatest commandment answer with the Shema itself, which is not technically a commandment but the theological foundation for all the commandments: the Lord our God, the Lord is one. The oneness of God is the foundation; the love command follows from it.

Mark 12:30

Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength — the love command of Deuteronomy 6:5 is the first and greatest commandment. The four-fold all (heart, soul, mind, strength) communicates totality: the love of God is not one compartment of life alongside others but the comprehensive orientation of the whole person toward God. The heart (emotional center), soul (the self), mind (rational capacity), and strength (physical capacity) together constitute the complete human person.

Mark 12:31

The second is this: love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these — the second commandment from Leviticus 19:18 is inseparable from the first: love God, love neighbor. The there is no commandment greater than these communicates that every other commandment is an application or expression of these two. All the Torah and the prophets (Matthew 22:40) hang on these two — they are not two commandments among many but the root from which all commandments grow.

Mark 12:32

Well said, teacher, the man replied. You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him — the scribe's response is the affirmation that extends and develops Jesus' answer. He confirms the monotheistic foundation, adds the emphasis that there is no other but him (a note of exclusivity), and then applies the commandments to the priority of love over sacrifice.

Mark 12:33

And to love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices — the scribe's application — love is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices — draws on Hosea 6:6 (I desire mercy, not sacrifice) and the prophetic tradition's consistent emphasis that external religious performance without internal reality is worthless. The scribe is not dismissing the sacrificial system but correctly ranking it: love is the substance, sacrifice is the form.

Mark 12:34

When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, you are not far from the kingdom of God. And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions — the you are not far from the kingdom of God is both a commendation and a gentle challenge: close but not yet inside. The scribe's theological understanding is excellent; the question is whether understanding will become the faith and following that constitutes entry. From then on no one dared ask him any more questions: the controversy dialogues are over; Jesus has answered every challenge.

Mark 12:35

While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked, why do the teachers of the law say that the Messiah is the son of David? — the initiative shifts to Jesus: he poses the question rather than answering one. The question about the Messiah's relationship to David is the theological question that the previous answers have been building toward. The teachers of the law correctly identify the Messiah as the son of David (2 Samuel 7:12–16, Psalm 89, Isaiah 11:1); the question is whether son of David is the complete description.

Mark 12:36

David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared: the Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet — Psalm 110:1 is quoted: David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, calls the Messiah my Lord. If the Messiah is merely David's descendant, David would not call him Lord — a son is not his father's lord. The Psalm's testimony that David called the Messiah Lord implies that the Messiah's identity transcends the son-of-David category.

Mark 12:37

David himself calls him Lord. How then can he be his son? The large crowd listened to him with delight — the logical conclusion is stated: if David calls the Messiah Lord, in what sense is the Messiah David's son? The answer Jesus implies but does not state is that the Messiah is both — son of David (human lineage) and David's Lord (divine identity). Romans 1:3–4 will make the full answer explicit. The crowd's delight communicates that the teaching's quality and its implicit critique of the scribal inadequacy are equally appreciated.

Mark 12:38

As he taught, Jesus said, watch out for the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and be greeted with respect in the marketplaces — the warning about the teachers of the law is the chapter's final section, transitioning from controversy dialogues to prophetic denunciation. The flowing robes and respectful greetings are the external markers of status that the teachers perform and seek. The desire to be seen and honored publicly is the opposite of the child-welcoming, servant-of-all kingdom standard.

Mark 12:40

They devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. These men will be punished most severely — the devouring of widows' houses is the chapter's most specific accusation: the teachers' religious authority is being used to exploit the vulnerable. Widows were among the most economically vulnerable members of ancient society; the teachers who are called to protect them are instead taking from them. The lengthy prayers that accompany the exploitation are the external religious performance that masks the internal corruption.

Mark 12:41

Jesus sat down opposite the treasury and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts — the treasury observation scene is introduced as a deliberate watching: Jesus sat down and watched. The treasury had thirteen trumpet-shaped receptacles for different offerings; the sound of coins and the visibility of the givers made giving a semi-public act. Many rich people threw in large amounts — the language threw in (eballon) communicates the physicality and possibly the showiness of the large-gift deposit.

Mark 12:42

But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents — the poor widow's offering is introduced in sharp contrast to the many rich people. Two very small copper coins (two lepta) — the lepton was the smallest coin in circulation, a fraction of a denarius. The two coins together were worth a kodrantes (quadrans), the smallest Roman coin. The monetary value is as small as possible while still being a real offering.

Mark 12:43

Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others — the calling of the disciples communicates that the widow's offering requires a formal teaching moment. The counterintuitive claim — she has put in more — requires the explanation that follows. More by what standard? The standard that the teaching will reveal: not the amount given but the proportion of the whole, not the gift's face value but its cost to the giver.

Mark 12:44

They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything — all she had to live on — the contrast is complete: they gave out of their wealth (the surplus, the overflow that cost them nothing essential) while she gave out of her poverty (the deficit, the nothing that cost her everything). All she had to live on — the two lepta were not a token offering from reserve but the entirety of her daily sustenance. The widow who gave everything to the temple whose leaders devour widows' houses is Mark's most devastating irony of the Jerusalem section.