xii. 1–12. The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen: cf. Matt. xxi. 33–46; Luke xx. 9–19.

1. he began to speak unto them in parables. To this period belong also the parables of the Two Sons, and the Marriage of the King’s Son, which are recorded only by Matthew (xxi. 28–32, xxii. 1–14). Though silenced for the time, the Jewish authorities did not quit the scene, and Jesus resumed his parabolic teaching, giving it a new form specially addressed to those officials and representatives of the people. Luke tells us that this parable of the Wicked Husbandmen was spoken to the people themselves, while Matthew and Mark state that it was directed to the official classes in particular.

a vineyard. The foundation of the parable is the O.T. figure of Israel as the Lord’s vineyard, of which we have instances both in the Psalms and in the Prophets (e.g. Ps. lxxx.; Isa. v. 2, &c.; Jer. ii. 21)—a figure peculiarly appropriate in a land in which the vine was tended with such care and yielded such a return (Deut. xxviii. 8, &c.). The passage in the fifth chapter of Isaiah is most in view here.

set a hedge about it. The ‘hedge’ might be a hedge or line of stones, or a wall, or a hedge of thorns. The prickly wild aloe is said to be used for such purposes, and to make a very serviceable fence (cf. Ps. lxxx. 12, 13; Song of Songs ii. 15). Or it might be rather a stone wall of a rough kind, such as may be seen in Palestine to-day. Dean Stanley says that circular enclosures of loose stone, like the walls of fields in Derbyshire or Westmoreland, Bethlehem, and Olivet (Sinai and Palestine, p. 421). Thus was the valuable possession to be protected against wild beasts, boars, jackals, foxes, and the like (Ps. lxxx. 13; Num. xxii. 24; Song of Songs ii. 15; Neh. iv. 3), and against robbers.

digged a pit for the winepress. The grapes were placed in a trough, in which they were trodden by the feet of the servants—a joyous operation accompanied with song (Judges ix. 27; Isa. lxiii. 2; Jer. xxv. 30). This was the ‘press,’ in most cases a trough dug in the solid rock or in the earth, in which latter case it was lined with masonry (cf. Num. xviii. 30; Prov. iii. 10; Isa. lxiii. 3; Lam. i. 15). At a lower elevation was the ‘pit,’ a smaller cavity, also often excavated out of the rock, into which the juice of the trodden grapes ran.

built a tower. For purposes of observation and defence, as also for the shelter of the servants in charge, and for storage. So everything was done that care could do, and the owner who, as was often the case, let the vineyard to tenants, here called ‘the husbandmen,’ was entitled to look at the end of the season for his rent. That rent was paid in the form of a certain portion of the fruits. [Salmond, 1906]

he sent to the husbandmen a servant. First one slave is sent to gather the rent, then another, then many more; but, instead of receiving what was due to their master, they were beaten, or wounded, or killed. In Matthew’s version of the parable the servants are sent in two successive bands. In this Jesus doubtless had in view the treatment of the messengers of God by those in power in the evil times of Jewish history, the menaces levelled at Elijah by Jezebel, and at Elisha by Jehoram (1 Kings xix. 2; 2 Kings vi. 31), the imprisonment of Micaiah (1 Kings xxii. 24–27), the prophets slain in Ahab’s time (1 Kings xviii. 13; xix. 10), and the prophets slain by the order of Joash (2 Chron. xxiv. 21), and the like. [Salmond, 1906]

He had yet one, a beloved son. Not a slave now, but one of more account by far than many slaves. But when the husbandmen became aware that the son was coming, they took cruel counsel one with another and decided to put him to death, thinking that they might make the inheritance their own. This great title ‘heir’ in the N.T. is the stated name for the adopted of God (e.g. Rom. iv. 13, viii. 17; Gal. iii. 29, iv. 1, 7; Tit. iii. 7; Heb. vi. 17, xi. 7; Jas. ii. 5). Christ is the ‘heir’ in the unique sense in which also he is the ‘Son,’ the ‘heir of all things,’ made such by God (Heb. i. 2). [Salmond, 1906]

What therefore will the lord of the vineyard do? This is the question to which the terms of the parable are meant to lead up. Here it is put and answered by Jesus himself. In Matthew those addressed are made to give the reply, which condemns them out of their own mouth. In Luke those who hear betray their consciousness of what Jesus meant by crying out, ‘God forbid.’ [Salmond, 1906]

Have ye not read even this scripture? ‘Even this scripture’; for the passage was a familiar and oft quoted one. It is taken from Ps. cxviii., which, under the figure of a stone cast aside by builders, but afterwards recovered and made the key-stone of the fabric, speaks of Israel as set aside and despised by the world-powers, but finally restored to the place of honour designed for it by God among the nations. This Psalm appears to have received a Messianic interpretation among the Jews. Here it is applied by Jesus to himself, the true representative of Israel, rejected indeed by the ruling classes of a perverted Judaism, but the elect of God, appointed to be the head of a new Israel, the point of unity of the people of God, both Jewish and Gentile. ‘By the head of the corner’ is meant not the cope-stone, but one of the stones set at the corners of a building so as to bind the walls together—the chief of these, the one laid with public ceremony. Peter makes use of it more than once (Acts iv. 11; 1 Pet. ii. 4–7). Paul also applies it more than once into his high argument (Rom. ix. 32; Eph. ii. 20), attaching it to the word of Isaiah (xxviii. 16).

The meaning of the parable could not be mistaken. In its clear terms leaders and people both were shewn themselves in their privilege, their sin, and their doom; in the grace given them by God, their misuse of the gift, and their disregard of His prophets. It was a prophecy of the judgement of God on them and their nation for their final guilt—the rejection of the speaker himself, their Messiah. [Salmond, 1906]

they sought to lay hold on him. A second time they would fain have laid hands on him here and now, but dared not in face of the sympathy of the masses. [Salmond, 1906]

xii. 13–17. Questions by the Pharisees: cf. Matt. xxii. 15–22; Luke xx. 20–26.

13. they send unto him. This refers to the chief priests, scribes, and elders already mentioned. Matthew represents the Pharisaic party as the senders, and the persons sent as certain of their own ‘disciples.’ If they were young pupils the selection would be cunningly made, so as to give the impression of sincerity and guilelessness on the part of the questioners. The authorities change their tactics. Instead of confronting Jesus in a body, they now send separate companies of emissaries, all with the purpose of getting Jesus to compromise himself by something he might be tempted to say in reply to some apparently innocent question. A series of three such questions follows.

and of the Herodians. The Pharisees take the lead, but associate with themselves some of the Herodians. By these we are to understand members of ‘the Herodian party,’ of which mention has already been made in Mark’s Gospel (iii. 6); not, as is sometimes, some of Herod’s soldiers (Luke xxiii. 11). This combination of Herodians with the Pharisees is noticed only by Mark. It is of a piece with the crafty character of their policy as a whole. For these two parties were sharply divided in their sympathies. The Pharisees were at issue, on the principle, vehemently opposed to the foreign rule of the Roman. The other accepting it and profiting by it. In his reply, therefore, Jesus could not avoid, as they thought, giving offence to one or other.

catch him, or ‘ensnare’ him. It is a hunter’s term. [Salmond, 1906]

we know that thou art true, and carest not for any one. A cunningly contrived address, using his truthfulness and fearlessness as inducements to make him answer. Surely he was not the man to shirk awkward and dangerous questions. He would meet their difficulties at any cost, without regard to fear or favour, and so they came to him.

Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar? The ‘tribute’ is the capitation-tax or poll-tax (as distinguished from the ordinary customs on merchandize), levied on individuals and paid yearly into the imperial treasury. It was an offence to the patriotic Jew, as it was the token of his subjection to foreign rule, and because the coin in which it was paid bore the emperor’s effigy. This was not the case with the copper coins current among the Jews locally, as distinguished from the imperial coinage. In deference to Jewish feelings these were stamped with other devices—leaves of the native trees, and the like. [Salmond, 1906]

Shall we give, or shall we not give? The former question touched only the legitimacy of paying the tax under the provisions of the Jewish law. This one brought the matter to the practical point of actual payment or refusal. The rising of Judas of Galilee, the Gaulanite as he is called by Josephus (Antiq. xviii. i. 1), which is referred to in Acts v. 37, had its occasion in the odium attaching to this tax. In the second administration of Quirinius (cf. Luke ii. 1, 2, with respect to the first), when Judea had been made a part of the Roman province of Syria, a census was ordered (A.D. 6–8), ‘the great census,’ as it is termed, which was taken according to the Roman methods of registration and valuation. It meant the exaction of tribute and was fiercely resisted by Judas and his followers. To pay tribute to a heathen ruler was to be unfaithful to Jehovah whom alone they owned as king.

bring me a penny: rather, a silvering or a shilling. The tribute had to be paid in the imperial silver coinage. Matthew and Luke say ‘shew me.’ But Mark’s ‘bring me’ expresses the exact position. It was Jewish coins that were required for the temple, and the men who had come about Jesus, Pharisees and others, might not have a denarius in their purses. The coin had to be procured, probably from the money-changers, and the bystanders would wait for it wondering all the more what was to happen. [Salmond, 1906]

image: the figure of the head of Tiberius, encircled by laurel.

superscription: the legend or device on the other side of the coin. A figure of Livia, the emperor’s mother, seated, the sceptre in one hand and a flower in the other, is shewn on a denarius which has come down from the time.

they said unto him, Caesar’s. Thus were they made to answer their own question. The Jewish Rabbis taught that ‘wheresoever the money of any king is current, there the inhabitants acknowledge that king for their lord.’ (See Abbot’s Commentary on Matthew and Mark, p. 242.) [Salmond, 1906]

Render. The word is the one used for the giving back of the book to the attendant in the synagogue at Nazareth, and of the healed boy to his father (Luke iv. 20, ix. 42). It means the discharge of a debt, the giving back of something that is due. Benefits received under a government imply corresponding obligations to it. Acceptance of the government of Caesar, as indicated by acceptance of his coinage and enjoyment of the privileges secured under his rule, meant acceptance also of responsibilities, and among these the payment of what was Caesar’s due, what was required for the support of his administration.

unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s. There are duties to civil government, then, and duties to God. They are entirely compatible with each other. But to be faithfully discharged each in its own proper sphere. And there is no distinction between the rendering of the one and the other. There is further the limitation of the first. ‘The powers that be are ordained of God’ (Rom. xiii. 1). Caesar himself is of God, and his commands are binding so far only as they are consistent with that ordination of his. The principle of obedience to civil rule is enforced repeatedly in the N.T., especially in the Epistles (Rom. xiii. 1–7; cf. Tit. iii. 1; 1 Pet. ii. 12–14; Eph. vi. 5, &c.). The duty of refusing obedience when the requirements of civil authority conflict with the supreme law of duty to God is recognized both in the O.T. (Dan. iii. 18, v. 10) and in the N.T. (Acts iv. 19, v. 29).

marvelled greatly. A strong word, found in the N.T. only here, and meaning that they were utterly amazed, so that they had nothing to say (‘they held their peace,’ says Luke) and were glad to quit the scene. They ‘left him, and went their way,’ says Matthew. They had hoped they were to ensnare him one way or the other. If he said they should pay the tax, he would turn the people against him, who expected their Messiah to rid them of the Roman yoke and the hated Roman taxation. If he said they should not pay, he would expose himself to the charge of not being Caesar’s friend, and have the Roman authorities against him. The accusation of ‘perverting the nation and of forbidding to give tribute to Caesar,’ for which the reply desired by these Pharisees would have given ground, was afterwards made against him in spite of their defeat on this occasion (Luke xxiii. 2). Here their own action is made to refute and silence them. [Salmond, 1906]

xii. 18–27. The Question of the Sadducees: Cf. Matt. xxii. 23–33; Luke xx. 27–38.

18. there come unto him Sadducees. The emissaries of the Pharisees being discomfited, certain members of the opposite party take their place. This is the first and only direct introduction of the party of the Sadducees in Mark’s Gospel, and the same is the case with Luke (xx. 27). The Sadducees indeed are seldom mentioned by name in the N.T. In the Book of Acts they come but thrice upon the scene (iv. 1, v. 17, xxii. 6, 7, 8). As to the Gospels, it is mainly in Matthew that they appear, and not often even there (iii. 1, 7, v. 17, xvi. 6, 11, 12, xxii. 23, 34). In John’s Gospel they are never noticed directly by name. Josephus speaks of them as a small minority of the Jews, and as consisting only of the rich and those of highest station (Antiq. xiii. x. 6, xviii. i. 4). The word Sadducees is now generally understood to be derived from the proper name Zadok. The Zadok in view is probably the faithful priest of David’s time (2 Sam. xv. 24, &c.; 1 Kings i. 32, &c.). The sons of Zadok had a conspicuous place among the priestly families after the return from exile. They represented the old priestly party, who sought to bring the Jewish people over to Greek ways. They are first heard of as a distinct party in the reign of John Hyrcanus (135–105 B.C.). They enjoyed some power during the times preceding Pompey’s capture of Jerusalem. After the destruction of the city in A.D. 70 they are no more heard of. They believed in the priestly aristocracy, the party being made up indeed of their priests and their families. Hence when the ‘chief priests’ are mentioned along with the Pharisees, the Sadducaic party may be understood to be in view. They counted for little with the people, and they do not seem to have taken any notice of Jesus till late in his ministry. When he accepted the title ‘son of David,’ and interfered with the jurisdiction of the great council by changing things in the temple, the Sadducees joined with others in the opposition which aimed at his life.

which say that there is no resurrection. So, too, in the parallel passages in Matthew and Luke. So also Josephus (Antiq. xviii. i. 3, &c.). In Acts it is added that they held also that there is ‘neither angel nor spirit’ (xxiii. 8). From Josephus we learn further that they denied future rewards and punishments; that they thought of the soul as perishing with the body; and that they disavowed the doctrines of fate, or absolute foreordination, and providence (Antiq. xviii. i. 3, &c.; Jewish War, ii. viii. 14). [Salmond, 1906]

Moses wrote unto us, If a man’s brother die. The reference is to the Levirate law as given in the Deuteronomic code (Deut. xxv. 5, 6), which was a provision to prevent the extinction of families. This law of Levirate marriage was to the effect that, if a man died without a son to succeed him, his brother should marry the widow, and that the first-born son of this second union should be registered as the child of the deceased husband. It is to be observed, however, that it did not apply universally, but only to cases where the brothers dwelt together. The law is quoted freely, so that the terms vary somewhat in the several records. [Salmond, 1906]

There were seven brethren. They put an imaginary case and an extreme one, which might seem to reduce the doctrine of a bodily resurrection to absurdity. Not unlikely it was a familiar puzzle with which the sceptical Sadducee was accustomed to vex the soul of the orthodox Pharisee; and to the Pharisee with his crude, materialistic ideas of the future life it would be a great difficulty. Would this new teacher be able to meet it without committing himself to their sceptical doctrine, or to a position which could be ridiculed? The doctrine of a bodily resurrection and the word of the law in the matter of Levirate unions were things that might not, as they thought, be reconciled. Could he answer so as to make them consistent? [Salmond, 1906]

Is it not for this cause that ye err? He declares the questioners themselves at fault. The difficulty which they propounded had no foundation. It was in error they made of it what they did. He gives two reasons also for their mistake—their misunderstanding of the very scriptures to which they appealed, and their ignorance of the power of God. In the following verses he explains these reasons further, taking the latter first. [Salmond, 1906]

they neither marry, nor are given in marriage. These Sadducees, clever as they judged themselves, and ill-content with the popular doctrine, were yet as incapable as others of rising above the ordinary notions of things. They thought of life only as it was known to them under its earthly conditions. They had no conception of a life that could be both lived and continued under higher conditions and with different relations. But God’s power was not to be limited, as they imagined, to one order of existence. He could provide a life in which there was no death, and, therefore, neither birth nor marriage. So in Luke the statement is given in these express terms—‘They that are accounted worthy to attain to that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: for neither can they die any more’ (xx. 35, 36).

are as angels. Not ‘are angels,’ but ‘are as angels.’ The difference between human existence and angelic remains; but in the resurrection-life men will be like angels, as the possessors of an undying life, independent of the marriage relation. [Salmond, 1906]

have ye not read in the book of Moses? Jesus now passes to the other reason for their mistake—their misunderstandings of scripture. They had appealed to Moses. He now confutes them by Moses, convicting them of ignorance of the very authority they had adduced. ‘The book of Moses’ is the name for what is known in the O.T. (2 Chron. xxv. 12), but in the N.T. is usually known as ‘the Law’ (Luke xvi. 29; cf. John i. 45).

in the place concerning the Bush: lit. ‘at The Bush,’ that is, in the paragraph of the Torah or Law which gives the story of the Burning Bush (Exod. iii. 1, &c.). So in Rom. xi. 2 we have ‘in Elijah’ (R. V., marg.) for ‘in the section relating to Elijah.’

how God spake unto him. In Luke, Moses is made the speaker (xx. 37.)

I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Cf. Exod. iii. 6. The repetition of the terms points to the distinct and individual relation in which God stands to each. [Salmond, 1906]

He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. God spoke of Himself as still the God of the patriarchs, still in relation to them though they were departed. But the living God can be in actual, living relation only to the living. Hence these departed fathers must be in existence. The point of the statement turns on two things. Of these the first is the O.T. conception of the divine fellowship. The condition of life, of all life worthy of the name, is the fellowship of God, and that fellowship ensures the life (cf. e.g. Ps. xvi. 8–11, xlix. 13–15, lxxiii. 23–26.). The second is the O.T. conception of man. The Hebrew Scriptures think of man as a unity, in the integrity and oneness of his corporeal and incorporeal nature. They do not distinguish sharply, as modern thought does, ‘between soul and body,’ and speak simply of the immortality of the latter. It is the man himself, the whole living, breathing man, that passes at death into Sheol, the unseen world, and continues to exist there. It was on these foundations that the O.T. revelation of life, immortality, and resurrection rose and grew from stage to stage in definiteness and clearness. So the argument from the words ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,’ which might seem to us not to carry so directly the idea of an immortality of soul, meant to the Hebrew not simply the idea of immortality, but of the integrity of continued living being, and so of resurrection life. The statement includes ‘for all alike extending their scope of life, and beyond death.’ Death is a change of relation to men seen, not to God they loved. ‘Death is a change, not of the life but of the mode; it does not change our relation to God’ (Swete).

ye do greatly err. Peculiar to Mark. Their lack of insight into scripture had led them far astray. Matthew notices the effect upon the people and upon the questioners. The multitudes ‘were astonished’; the Sadducees were ‘put to silence’ (xxii. 33, 34). [Salmond, 1906]

xii. 28–34. The Question of a Scribe: cf. Matt. xxii. 34–40.

28. one of the scribes came. This scribe, a ‘lawyer’ as Matthew calls him, had been present when the question of the resurrection was under discussion, and had been impressed by the reply of Jesus. He belonged to the party of the Pharisees (Matt. xxii. 34, 35), and when the opposite sect withdraws silenced, he comes forward with a question of a different kind. Matthew speaks of him as ‘tempting’ Jesus (xxii. 35). Mark represents Jesus as recognizing the discreetness of his words (xii. 34). Luke introduces his account of the question of a lawyer regarding the way to inherit eternal life at an earlier stage, after his report of the mission of the Seventy, and in connexion with the parable of the Good Samaritan (x. 25–29).

What commandment? The words may refer to the quality of the commandment rather than to its place among the ten. What is the kind of commandment that is entitled to rank first? What must be its distinguishing quality? The question was one often debated in the schools. [Salmond, 1906]

The first is, Hear, O Israel. Jesus at once points the scribe to the words of the Deuteronomic version of the decalogue (Deut. vi. 4, 5), and to that part of it which not only had the foremost place in the code, but was repeated twice every day by all Jews, and was emphasized by the strictest of them in their phylacteries—the two small leather boxes worn, one on the forehead and the other on the left arm (Matt. xxiii. 1, &c.). Our Lord had pointed, as he spoke, to such a phylactery on the person of the scribe himself as a visible witness to the supremacy of the commandment being enjoined: love to God, and with all the capacities of his being—‘heart’ and ‘soul’ and ‘mind’ and ‘strength,’ the powers of our intellectual, emotional, and moral nature.

The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Better than the rendering of the A.V., ‘The Lord our God is one Lord.’ [Salmond, 1906]

The second is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. The words are from Leviticus (xix. 18); cf. Rom. xiii. 9; Gal. v. 14; Jas. ii. 8. In Leviticus the word ‘neighbour’ is used with reference to fellow Jews. In the N.T. it has the widest possible extension of meaning. Jesus lifted it at once and for ever out of its more limited application by his parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke x. 29–37). This precept, therefore, expresses the principle of the second table of the moral law as the former does that of the first table. This mention of a second foremost commandment is made unsolicited, and this precept is said by Jesus expressly to be ‘like unto’ the first (xxii. 39), of the same character, with the same claims, and equally essential. The sum and substance of all duty are in these two requirements, and the second is the test of the first. ‘Than these there can be none greater.’ [Salmond, 1906]

answered discreetly. Jesus saw that the scribe recognized the moral duties to be far more than ceremonial performances and material sacrifices in any of their forms. ‘Burnt-offerings’ is the more specific term, applicable to offerings expressive of thanksgiving or, it may be, of dedication. ‘Sacrifices’ is the more general term, covering all kinds of sacrificial victims or offerings. In the Epistle to the Hebrews we read of ‘sacrifices and offerings, and whole burnt-offerings and sacrifices for sin’ (x. 8).

Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. The scribe had at least this qualification for the kingdom, that he understood its requirements to be moral requirements, the fundamental duties of love to God and love to man, and not ceremonial observances. Having this insight into spiritual things and this sympathy with truth, he wanted little to make him a disciple.

durst ask him any question. The policy of entangling him in his talk came to an end. The captious questions had been forced out of their own mouths, and in each case their own principles had been appealed to and set against their underlying pride. None had the courage to proceed further in this way. [Salmond, 1906]

answered and said. As if in what he now said he had still questions in view, those questions which had been put to him. He will now dismiss them once and for all by a counter-question, and one which these men could not answer.

as he taught in the temple. When courage failed his interrogators to continue their course, he was able to resume his instructions in the temple which had been interrupted.

How say the scribes? In Matthew the question is addressed to the Pharisees. Both parties seem to have been present again.

that the Christ (i.e. the Messiah) is the son of David. That the Messiah was to come of David’s line was inferred from important passages in the Prophets (Isa. xi. 1; Jer. xxiii. 5) and the Psalms (lxxxix. 3, 4, cxxxii. 11). It was the general belief of the time (cf. Matt. xxi. 9, 15; Mark xi. 10). [Salmond, 1906]

David himself said in the Holy Spirit. That is, by inspiration, or in the character of a prophet. So Peter, quoting the sixteenth Psalm as David’s, says of him that ‘being a prophet … he foreseeing this spake of the resurrection of the Christ’ (Acts ii. 25, 30, 31). The mention of his inspiration here gives the greater authority to his words. The Psalm in question, the sixteenth, was interpreted as a Messianic Psalm, and in that character it is quoted in the N.T. more frequently than any other Messianic passage of the O.T. (Acts ii. 34, 35; 1 Cor. xv. 25; Heb. i. 13, v. 6, vii. 17, &c.). It is quoted here with very little modification from the Greek version of the O.T. Jesus does not pause here to occupy himself with any questions of Biblical criticism. He accepts the current view of the authorship and the interpretation of the Psalm, and on that basis presses his question, by which he is at once to silence these crafty adversaries finally, and to expose the insufficiency of their ideas of the Messiah. [Salmond, 1906]

David himself calleth him Lord. The Psalm speaks of the Messiah as also a priest, and brings him into association with a divine kingdom which Jehovah makes subject of all his enemies. This prince is addressed by Jehovah and is called by him Lord. This is said by ‘David himself,’ the Psalm being written by him, and it is said prophetically of the Messiah whom these scribes and Pharisees speak of as the son of David. So there arises the difficulty which is expressed in the next sentence.

whence is he his son? How comes it then that he is his son? How can this Messiah, who is the subject of David’s prophecy, be at once David’s Lord and David’s son? To this question the scribes nor Pharisees could reply, because their ideas of the Messiah were limited and insufficient. The conjunction of Lordship and sonship meant, what they did not recognize, that the Messiah was more than a royal descendant of David the king—that he had a higher relation still, a peculiar relation to God which made him Lord even of David.

and the common people: rather, the ‘great multitude’ of the common people.

heard him gladly. In the connexion in which they stand here the words seem to mean that they heard gladly what he said of Messiah’s Lordship as well as his Davidic sonship. [Salmond, 1906]

xii. 38–40. Warnings against the Scribes: cf. Matt. xxiii. 1–39; Luke xx. 45–47.

38. And in his teaching he said. He was able now to continue his teaching. It was directed both to his disciples and to the people (Matt. xxiii. 1), to the disciples in the first instance, but also in the hearing of the people (Luke xx. 45). It took the form now of denunciation of the professional classes and warning against them. Of this teaching Mark and Luke give but a few representative fragments. In Matthew we have it recorded at greater length.

which desire to walk in long robes. Stately, flowing robes like those of kings and priests. The sign of ostentation.

salutations in the marketplaces. High-sounding titles, Rabbi, Master, and the like (cf. Matt. xxiii. 7–10), addressed to them in the most public way. [Salmond, 1906]

chief seats in the synagogues. Probably the benches or seats reserved for the elders, in front of the ark and facing the people.

chief places at feasts. Not ‘the uppermost rooms’ as in the A.V., but the places reserved at table for the most eminent guests. Where these were is not quite certain. Probably custom  was not constant. But in the Rabbinical books the seat of honour is said to have been the central place, when three persons reclined together. Three couches, it is said, used to be arranged along three sides of a table (the fourth side being left open for the purpose of service), and of these, the middle one was the place of the chief guest. These scribes craved, therefore, to be treated as the personages of the greatest importance on social occasions as well as on religious. [Salmond, 1906]

they which devour widows’ houses. Widows were under the protection of the Law (Exod. xxii. 22), and the scribes, as the custodians and interpreters of the Law, were specially bound to care for them. The guilt of these scribes in enriching themselves, no doubt under legal forms, at the cost of the solitary and defenceless ones who trusted them, was all the greater.

and for a pretence make long prayers. They hid their real character under a profession of extraordinary piety, and under colour of being men more given to prayer than others practised their greedy and dishonest arts.

Ostentation, ambition, pride, avarice—these were the sins that brought judgement on the scribes, and the heavier judgement because all was done under the cloak of hypocrisy. The man who lives for avarice and ambition has his condemnation. The man who does this under the cover of a loud religious profession has the greater condemnation. [Salmond, 1906]

xii. 41–44. The Widow’s Offering: cf. Luke xxi. 1–4.

41. he sat down. Jesus had left the court of the Gentiles in which he had been teaching and answering ensnaring questions, and had passed into the court of the women. Here he seated himself, weary no doubt with what he had had to do, on the stone or within the gate (where alone it seems to have been allowable; see Edersheim’s The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, ii. 387), and watched the people as they brought their gifts. Mark’s narrative is characteristically graphic all through. It shews us Jesus seating himself, the exact position which he took, the interest with which he watched the multitudes of various classes passing him, the solitary figure of the widow catching his attention, and his call to the disciples.

over against the treasury. In the Apocrypha mention is made of the great treasury—a depository for the safe keeping not only of treasure, but of public records, and also of the private money of widows and orphans (1 Macc. xiv. 49; 2 Macc. iii. 6, 10, 28, 40; iv. 42, v. 18). Josephus also speaks of treasuries in the court of the women in Herod’s temple (Jewish War, v. v. 2, vi. v. 2), and of ‘the treasury’ (Antiq. xix. vi. 1). Here the name ‘treasury’ appears to be given to that part of the court of the women (a court large enough, it is said, to accommodate more than 15,000 people) in which provision was made for receiving the contributions of the worshippers. Under the colonnades were placed thirteen boxes, which were called the ‘trumpets,’ because of their trumpet-shaped mouths, into which offerings in money were dropped (cf. Luke xxi. 1, and also John viii. 20). Of these, according to Lightfoot (Horae Hebr. et Talm., p. 536, &c.), ‘nine chests were for the appointed temple-tribute, and for the sacrifice-tribute, that is, money-gifts instead of the sacrifices; four chests for free-will offerings, for wood, incense, temple decoration, and burnt-offerings.’

beheld how the multitude cast money. The money would be mostly the copper coins which ‘the masses’ handled. Luke says Jesus ‘looked up’ (xx. 1), that is, from the floor of the court or the steps where he had sat down, his attention being caught by the moving figures, and the dropping of the coins into the boxes.

many that were rich cast in much. It became so much the fashion to give lavishly that a law had to be enacted, we are told, forbidding the gift to the temple of more than a certain proportion of one’s possessions. And the amount of such contributions may be inferred by recalling the circumstance that, at the time of Pompey and Crassus, the temple-treasury, after having lavishly defrayed every possible expenditure, contained in money nearly half a million, and precious vessels to the value of nearly two millions sterling (Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, ii. p. 388). [Salmond, 1906]

And there came a poor widow. ‘One poor widow’, as in the margin of the R.V., puts it. A single, solitary, sorrowful, poverty-stricken figure, lost in the passing crowds, but filling the Master’s eye.

two mites, which make a farthing. The ‘mite’ was a small copper coin, the smallest Jewish coin indeed, in value less than a Roman quadrans (as Mark explains to his Gentile readers), and equal to only the eighth part of an as, the denarius or as being what made one day’s wage of a labourer. It would take about 100 of these mites to make one of our pennies. The widow had but two of these trifling coins, and she parted with both. There was a Rabbinical rule forbidding an offering so meagre as a single mite. But that referred to the case of almsgiving, and is not in point here. [Salmond, 1906]

called … his disciples. He would have them together again and near him, so that all might hear the lesson suggested by this incident. And he gives them to understand its importance for themselves by prefacing it with the solemn words, ‘Verily I say unto you.’

cast in more than all they. In this case the poor giver, he wished them to understand, was the princely giver—a more liberal contributor than the whole multitude of the others. [Salmond, 1906]

of their superfluity … she of her want. The circumstances of the case explain the judgement. All the others gave out of their abundance, and their gift was limited to what they could easily spare. She gave out of her penury, and her gift consisted of all that she had—‘even all her living,’ all that she had for her support at the time. The giver, not the gift; the measure of the self-sacrifice, not the amount of the contribution—that is the Divine standard of appraisement. [Salmond, 1906]