HolyStudy
Bible IndexRead BibleNotesChurchesMissionPrivacyTermsContact
© 2026 HolyStudy
HomeRead BibleBible NotesChurchesSign in
HolyStudy
HomeRead BibleBible NotesChurches
Sign in

Mark 12

1

And he began to speak unto them by parables. A certain man planted a vineyard, and set an hedge about it, and digged a place for the winefat, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country.

1
2

And at the season he sent to the husbandmen a servant, that he might receive from the husbandmen of the fruit of the vineyard.

3

And they caught him, and beat him, and sent him away empty.

4

And again he sent unto them another servant; and at him they cast stones, and wounded him in the head, and sent him away shamefully handled.

5

And again he sent another; and him they killed, and many others; beating some, and killing some.

6

Having yet therefore one son, his wellbeloved, he sent him also last unto them, saying, They will reverence my son.

7

But those husbandmen said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours.

8

And they took him, and killed him, and cast him out of the vineyard.

9

What shall therefore the lord of the vineyard do? he will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others.

10

And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner:

11

This was the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

12

And they sought to lay hold on him, but feared the people: for they knew that he had spoken the parable against them: and they left him, and went their way.

1
1
13

And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in his words.

1
14

And when they were come, they say unto him, Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man: for thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute to Cesar, or not?

1
15

Shall we give, or shall we not give? But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye me? bring me a penny, that I may see it.

16

And they brought it. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? And they said unto him, Cesar’s.

17

And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Cesar the things that are Cesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s. And they marvelled at him.

1
18

Then come unto him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying,

19

Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man’s brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.

20

Now there were seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed.

1
21

And the second took her, and died, neither left he any seed: and the third likewise.

1
22

And the seven had her, and left no seed: last of all the woman died also.

1
23

In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife.

24

And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?

25

For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

26

And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?

27

He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.

28

And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?

29

And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

30

And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

31

And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

32

And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:

33

And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.

34

And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And no man after that durst ask him any question.

35

And Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that Christ is the Son of David?

36

For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.

37

David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son? And the common people heard him gladly.

38

And he said unto them in his doctrine, Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the marketplaces,

39

And the chief seats in the synagogues, and the uppermost rooms at feasts:

40

Which devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive greater damnation.

41

And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much.

42

And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.

43

And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury:

44

For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.

← 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.