Mark 11:27–12:12
27 And they came again to Jerusalem. And as he was walking in the temple, the chief priests and the scribes and the elders came to him, 28 and they said to him, “By what authority are you doing these things, or who gave you this authority to do them?” 29 Jesus said to them, “I will ask you one question; answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things. 30 Was the baptism of John from heaven or from man? Answer me.” 31 And they discussed it with one another, saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will say, ‘Why then did you not believe him?’ 32 But shall we say, ‘From man’?”—they were afraid of the people, for they all held that John really was a prophet. 33 So they answered Jesus, “We do not know.” And Jesus said to them, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things.”
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. 2 When the season came, he sent a servant1 to the tenants to get from them some of the fruit of the vineyard. 3 And they took him and beat him and sent him away empty-handed. 4 Again he sent to them another servant, and they struck him on the head and treated him shamefully. 5 And he sent another, and him they killed. And so with many others: some they beat, and some they killed. 6 He had still one other, a beloved son. Finally he sent him to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ 7 But those tenants said to one another, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’ 8 And they took him and killed him and threw him out of the vineyard. 9 What will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the tenants and give the vineyard to others. 10 Have you not read this Scripture:
“‘The stone that the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone;2
11 this was the Lord’s doing,
and it is marvelous in our eyes’?”
12 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.
1 Or bondservant; also verse 4 2 Greek the head of the corner
Section Overview
In this section the rejection of Jesus and unbelief concerning God’s redemptive purposes run in tandem. The opponents of Jesus are unsuccessful in convicting him of breaking the law of Moses concerning marriage and the chief commandments, nor of Scriptural teaching concerning “David’s Lord” (Mark 12:13–37). Despite this fact, opposition continues to increase steadily. The larger context for 11:27–12:12 begins in 11:20–25 and concludes with the instruction of the disciples (12:38–44). Subsequent to being questioned by the leaders in Jerusalem (11:27–33), Jesus teaches about his own authority. Mark 12:1–12 complements the preceding cleansing of the temple and its commercialism (11:15–19) by announcing the judgment of the leaders in Jerusalem (12:10) and thus the temple. Representatives of the Pharisees (12:13–17) and Sadducees (12:18–27) display hard-heartedness.
Section Outline
III.B. Work in Jerusalem (11:1–13:37) . . .
2. Jesus’ Authority Questioned; Jesus’ Response (11:27–12:12)
a. Jesus’ Authority Questioned (11:27–33)
b. Jesus Pronounces Judgment over the Jewish Leaders (12:1–12)
(1) The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen (12:1–9)
(2) Jesus Indicts His Opponents (12:10–12)
Response
Surprisingly, Jesus speaks very openly in Jerusalem during the last week of his life. Simultaneously, he continues to expose the inner attitude and heart of his opponents and followers. While his opponents still seek to dispute with him, he engages them on an increasingly deeper level of the heart. By rejecting John the Baptist (11:33a), Jesus’ opponents have rejected repentance, which would have opened them to receiving the One whom God has sent (11:33b). Likewise, Jesus discloses who he is in a much more direct and public fashion. Jesus freely states that he is the one beloved Son of God (12:6), who will be rejected in redemptive death (12:6; cf. Ps. 118:22; Mark 10:45), leading to the renewal of the people of God as a living temple. To oppose Jesus is to oppose the purifying and missional purposes of God. The rejection of Jesus, that is, the killing of the Son (12:6), is an expression of resistance to the will of God. In God’s sovereignty, however, such opposition is intended as a necessary step whereby the Messiah will atone for his enemies (10:45; 14:24).
Thus in the midst of the drama of Jesus’ rejection is the hope-giving sprout of new life. This encourages contemporary followers of Christ to live in a God-trusting hope, despite very difficult and troubling circumstances. In the midst of life-threatening rejection, the Messiah confidently speaks of a God-caused reversal. In the midst of the dark circumstances his followers face, then and now, there is real hope, for God is still building (Mark 12:9) on the foundation laid by the formerly rejected cornerstone (cf. 10:45; 14:24; Eph. 2:20) and the unique witness of the original apostles (Eph. 2:20). He is active to this present day (John 5:17). Followers of Christ will need to depend daily on the living God amid their own suffering for Christ’s sake, patiently awaiting surprising vindication by the power of God. In the midst of this, the unceasing love of God is always accessible, in life and in death (Rom. 8:37–39).
Or bondservant; also verse 4
Greek the head of the corner
11:27–30 A third day sees Jesus teaching in the temple (cf. 11:11, 15–19). The official authorities in Israel, especially the members of the Sanhedrin (8:31; 14:53, 55; 15:1), ask Jesus who has authorized him (“by what authority”) to act so decisively and authoritatively in cleansing the temple (11:28; cf. vv. 15–17). Just like the other opponents, their aim is to bring Jesus into disrepute before the public eye (cf. comment on 3:6).
11:29–30 According to Jesus, everyone who rejects John the Baptist rejects the redemptive-historical will of God. Such a rejection also leads to questions about Jesus’ own legitimacy. Those who disrespect the God who legitimized John the Baptist (a fact indirectly affirmed in 1:4–5) discredit him who sent and legitimized Jesus.
11:31–32 Those who oppose John the Baptist also oppose Jesus (9:37; 11:18; 12:38). They resist the redemptive-historical thrust, stated purpose, and mission of God (9:37; cf. Acts 7:1–53). Above all, Jesus’ opponents are “afraid” (cf. Mark 11:18) for their reputation and worried about losing their grip on power. They are thus caught in a difficult choice: if they were to concede that John the Baptist was commissioned by God, they would have to face the question of “why then did you not believe him?” Because of the popularity of John the Baptist, however, they do not have the courage to discredit him in public. Their motives are laid bare before the reader of the Gospel.
11:33 Because of the above-mentioned reasons, the opposition chooses not to give an answer. They persist in their own view and do not ask earnestly whether God might have sent John the Baptist to call them back to God. Note that this tendency was already apparent in 3:6. Their refusal to answer brings to light the fact that they are not sincerely interested to discern by what authority Jesus acts and teaches (v. 28). In response, Jesus does not answer their question, since his answer would fall on deaf ears (see 12:1–12). Implicitly, Jesus suggests that both he and John the Baptist were sent and commissioned by God. Jesus thus indirectly reiterates his divine calling in which John the Baptist served as the prophetic forerunner, preparing the way for the coming of Yahweh (Isa. 40:3; Mark 1:3). The coming of Yahweh occurred in the form of the temple-visiting “messenger of the covenant” (Mal. 3:1; cf. Mark 14:24), the servant of Yahweh (Isa. 52:13–53:12; Mark 10:45), the Lord of David (Ps. 110:1; Mark 12:35–37), and the Son of Man (Dan. 7:13–14; Mark 8:31, 38).
12:1–8 A story built around a “vineyard” is a familiar topic for the hearers of Jesus. His listeners know that in both Judea and Galilee absentee, and at times exploitative, landlords would run their business in a way similar to landlord in Jesus’ story. Disputes between landlords, their delegates, and “tenants,” who were at times not well treated, are also known (12:3–5). The plan to take possession of the land by killing the rightful heir is bold but plausible (12:6–8).
A stone fence and tower are installed to protect against wild animals; the “pit for the winepress” is used for the production of grape juice (cf. Isa. 5:2, 5), which will be fermented into wine. The landlord incurs much expense in establishing a vineyard; it is thus right that he expects a fair share in the profit. Note that the motif of a master’s departure is also found in the simile in Mark 13:34. Finally, a vineyard also serves as a well-known metaphor for God’s people Israel.
12:2 When the harvest time arrives, servants are sent to collect the landlord’s share, that is, “some of the fruit [karpos; “returns,” “yield”] of the vineyard.” At times OT prophets are identified as servants (cf. Jer. 7:25–26; Amos 3:7; Zech. 1:6). The implied reference to Isaiah 5:1–5 in verse 1 may also suggest that Jesus continues to pursue the theme of fruit of worship and righteousness for God underlying the section concerning the cleansing of the temple (cf. Mark 11:17).
12:3 That which might be reasonably expected does not occur. The landlord’s servants are sent home “empty-handed” (Gk. kenon), which literally means “empty” and figuratively “spiritually fruitless.” Additionally, they are even mistreated. Just as the authorities responsible for the temple service seek their own profit (11:17), so do those responsible for the vineyard (12:3–5; esp. 12:7). They seek to gain their own benefit from that which belongs to God. Neither of these groups facilitates fruit bearing for God.
12:4–5 In addition to the defrauding of the landlord (v. 3), the mistreatment of the landlord’s servants steadily increases: first they are beaten (v. 3), then they are “struck . . . on the head” (v. 4), and finally they are killed (v. 5). The fact that these events repeat themselves (“and so with many others”) reinforces the injustice and implies considerable patience on the part of the landlord. The hearer of the story might wonder by now why the landlord has not done anything against the caretakers. While God’s people as individuals may bear the fruit of godliness and worship, the leaders of Israel do not facilitate such growth. God’s patient and redemptive pursuit of his people (Heb. 1:1–2) is often accompanied by a history of resistance to his call to repentance (Neh. 9:9–35; Matt. 5:12; Acts 7:1–53).
12:6 The climax of the story is surprising: “He had still one other, a beloved son.” A literal translation of the Greek phrase eti hena eichen huion agapēton would be, “Still one he had, a beloved son.” While the text does not explicitly claim that he has only one son, it does unmistakably state that he had only one other to send, namely, a beloved son. In other words it is only one son, and thus by implication his only one, that he can still send after all of his servants have been rejected by the tenants. We note the significant echo in Genesis 22:1–2 concerning Abraham’s beloved and only son with Sarah, Isaac. There it states that “God tested Abraham and said to him, ‘Abraham!’ And he said, ‘Here I am.’ He said, ‘Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.’” “Respect” for a landlord would be directly expressed in the treatment of his rightful son, the future executor of his father’s estate.
Jesus’ implied message in Mark 12:6 is thus that God, as the owner of Israel, sends his only and beloved son to his people. Indirectly, Jesus claims here a unique Father-Son relationship, which is explicitly expressed in 1:11 and 9:7.
12:7–8 The tenants directly challenge the rights of the owner by seeking to “kill” his heir (cf. 11:18). In the present story one may infer that the tenants presume the son has arrived because the landlord has died. Note the gradual increase in the violence of the tenants: they reject the landlord’s rightful claims, they beat the landlord’s servants, they kill his servants, they steal the land by killing the son of the owner (cf. Gen. 37:20), and finally they disrespect the corpse of the heir in a shameful way by leaving it with wild animals. As one listens to the story, one may ask why the landlord has not acted earlier against the tenants. The message of Jesus drives home the fact that resisting God’s messengers does not remove accountability to God. There is great irony here: while God has secured protection for his people (Mark 12:1), the authorities who are answerable to God do not protect the legitimate Son of God (vv. 6–8).
12:9 Eventually, however, the “owner of the vineyard,” that is, God, punishes the wicket tenants, who in this story are the spiritual guardians of Israel (Isa. 5:3, 5; cf. Mark 14:62). He assigns the responsibility for tending his people to other servant-leaders, resolving to “give the vineyard to others” (cf. Matt. 16:17–19). This act of God shows that Israel belongs to God, as does his eternal Son sent to Israel (Acts 3:13). Israel remains accountable to God. Israel’s leaders thus disregard the possessions of God (Mark 11:27–12:12) and therefore incur his judgment (cf. 1 Sam. 12:20–25). The leaders do not repent. As their forefathers rejected the prophets of God, they now reject God’s eternal Son, after having already rejected his forerunner, John the Baptist.
12:10–11 The formulation of the introductory question, “Have you not read this Scripture . . . ?” displays similarities to the statement in Mark 2:25. At the time of Jesus, Psalm 118 was used in Passover liturgy and considered to be a messianic psalm. The reference to a “cornerstone” in Psalm 118:22 may thus have messianic implications, suggesting the construction of a messianic temple (cf. comment on 14:26). The opponents of Jesus are thus capable of understanding what he intends to say: the “stone” may refer to the Messiah. Since Jesus has already spoken of the one “son” (Mark 12:6), a metaphorical and messianic interpretation of “stone” is likely as well. Jesus thus connects the story’s son of the landlord (12:6) to the rejected messianic stone of Psalm 118:22 (Mark 12:10; 1 Pet. 2:4, 7). This is also supported by the Hebrew wordplay ben/eben (“son”/”stone”). “Builders” can likewise refer metaphorically to the leaders of Israel. An example for such a metaphorical use is found in the Qumran community’s reference to the corrupt leaders in Jerusalem as “builders.”
Jesus states that these leaders kill the messianic stone (Mark 12:7, 10). Rejection (Gk. apodokimazō, cf. 8:31; Luke 9:22; 17:25) alludes to the long history of the persecution of the prophets of God (Neh. 9:9–35; Acts 7:1–53). The new Jewish-Gentile Israel will gladly welcome the “Son” as the rightful herald, “heir,” and “cornerstone” (Isa. 28:16) of the eternal kingdom and temple of God (Jer. 51:26; Zech. 4:7). Both Mark 12:9 and 12:10 refer to a divinely orchestrated turn of events (cf. Ps. 118:22–23). In Mark 12:9 God hands over responsibility for his people to “others.” In verse 10 the discarded messianic stone (cf. v. 6–7) is divinely (v. 11) reinstated as the foundational cornerstone of a new temple building. In this interpretation, the rejected messianic stone hints at the death of the Son of God (cf. v. 6, 10). Later Muslim attempts to identify the rejected stone in Psalm 118:22//Mark 12:10 as the Kaaba stone in Mecca (Sura 3:97) are unfounded. The reason for this is that the “stone” in Psalm 118:22 had already long been applied by Jesus to himself (Mark 12:6, 10), together with his peacefully growing, worldwide kingdom and temple made of “living stones” (1 Peter 2:5).
12:12 As noted above, the ultimate key to grasping the meaning and purpose of the entire parable of the wicked husbandmen is found in this verse (see also 12:1, 5). While the opponents of Jesus realize that this story is aimed at them, they are unwilling to be convicted by it. They do not take Jesus’ words to heart. The opponents of Jesus have long resolved to kill him (cf. comments on 3:6; 11:18; 11:27). From their perspective, it is merely his fame that stands in the way of their plan: “but” they “feared the people” (cf. 11:32; 14:1–2). For a brief time, therefore, they grudgingly tolerate him (cf. Matt. 22:22). Mark 12:12 serves as the final link in a profound and eerie chain, which connects (1) the beloved but killed son of the story (v. 6), (2) the rejected but reestablished messianic “stone” (v. 10), and (3) the intention for the arrest and execution of Jesus (v. 12), who will be vindicated (16:8). These references all point to Christ.
Such a careful allegorical reading of Jesus’ story is supported and endorsed by the rising conflict between Jesus and his opponents throughout the Gospel account. As noted above, it also reinforces the general redemptive-historical trajectory of God’s pursuit of his people, regardless of their persistent resistance to his ways. Note in this context the long-standing OT theme of resistance to God’s ways, described especially in Nehemiah 9:6, 26, 28–31, 33–35. The present parable exemplifies how Jesus’ parabolic teaching can harden hearers’ hearts: “He had told the parable against them.” It is instructive to view the entire parable in Mark 12:1–12 from this vantage point.