Unceasing Love

MARK 12:18-27

For those who like baseball: first out -- the Pharisees; second out -- the Herodians; and the next up to bat…

The Sadducees.

Wealthy. Influential. While not the largest of the Jewish sects, they "were an aristocratic party who observed the written laws of the Torah only and not the traditions of the elders as the Pharisees did, and also differed in denying resurrection." [i]

Rabbinic oral interpretations had no binding force for them. The greatest authority was placed on the five books of Moses -- the Pentateuch (Genesis - Deuteronomy).

Did You Know…?

"Resurrection of the dead was not a belief in early Israel; life was believed to continue after death in the form of children and lineage." [ii] It was imperative therefore to continue the family name and to keep property within the family unit.

Where did "resurrection" first appear? In Isaiah 26:19 (also known as the "Isaiah Apocalypse") and in Daniel 12:2-3. Those verses aren't in the five books of Moses.

As for this powerful sect, "all of the High-Priests, chief priests, and the majority of the Sanhedrin were Sadducees. …They controlled the temple business." [iii]

Consider the role of the high priest -- the only one who could enter the Holy of Holies. It would be "a lucrative office, limited to a handful of noble families who pass the position between them like a legacy (the lower priests generally come from more modest backgrounds)." [iv]

'As head of the Sanhedrin and "leader of the nation," the high priest was a figure of both religious and political renown with the power to decide all religious matters, to enforce God's laws, and even to make arrests, though only in the vicinity of the Temple. If the Romans wanted to control the Jews, they had to control the Temple. And if they wanted to control the Temple, they had to control the high priest.' [v]

Pontius Pilate -- one of the longest serving Roman governors in Judea -- and Joseph Caiaphas -- wealthy high priest -- worked closely together. Rome and the religious hierarchy,… hand-in-hand. Can you imagine how that went over, especially with those who had less than? Jesus was a huge threat to Temple authority -- thereby tying in the role of the Sadducees in this unified plan to get rid of him.

So we have the absurd story, concocted by some Sadducees, of a family with seven brothers. One brother marries a woman, but before they have a son, the brother dies. Stepping up to the plate, the second brother marries the woman, but before they have a son, he dies, too. By the time it's all said and done, not only do the seven brothers marry the woman and die -- without a son being born -- the woman dies. "So, at the resurrection, whose wife is she? All seven were her husband."

Why is "son" is written above and not "child"? Since the Sadducees evoked Moses' name in this ludicrous test case, I believe they would have followed what is written in Deuteronomy 25:5-6.

One may think this group of wealthy aristocrats was poking fun at Jesus. Goading him. Nevertheless, there had to be more than that for the author of MARK to include this incident. Incorporating the custom of a levirate marriage into their story, the Sadducees wanted Jesus to deny resurrection or to renounce Mosaic law. 

How would the rejection of Mosaic law come into play? Because of what Jesus had previously stated. "Don't think I've come to abolish the law or the prophets; I haven't come to abolish but to fulfill."[vi] The Sadducees figured Jesus would play right into their hands.

Jesus, however, pulls a "Oh, no, he didn't." First, marriage isn't perpetuated for eternity. "You don't know how God works! Rising from the dead, like angels in heaven, we will be with God." How so? Well,…now for the strikeout pitch.

Notice Jesus didn't reference scripture from Isaiah or Daniel. He shares what would be recognized as authoritative by the Sadducees, using an important moment with Moses at the burning bush: Exodus 3:6 -- "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." Jesus points out the idea of eternal life is within the Pentateuch and with three patriarchs no less!

Imagine jaws dropping. "I am." Not "I was." "I am." God is the same God whether you're alive or dead. The bond isn't broken. God's love is unceasing.

"The Sadducees no longer dared to ask Jesus another question." [vii]

"When the crowd heard this, they were astounded."[viii]

Some of the reflections from the study group:

* Marc -- "Jesus completely took this out of time, for there had been a static view of a deity."

* C.J. -- "This was a big theological statement."

* Bev -- "In all of these things that have occurred at the temple, with Jesus teaching, it is the great centering. Jesus makes them think -- what is their purpose, what is God's purpose."

* Gene -- "This is a God who meets the people and isn't separated from them."

* Norma -- "They realized God is with them always."

Unceasing love. The "I am" that lives within us, and us within the "I am." With us always.

NEXT

The most important commandment

---

[i] Jewish Annotated New Testament -- p. 85

[ii] Jewish Annotated New Testament -- p. 85

[iii] MacArthur Study Bible -- p. 1488

[iv] Zealot, Reza Aslan -- p. 7

[v] Zealot, Reza Aslan -- p. 13

[vi] Matthew 5:17, NIV

[vii] Luke 20:40, NIV

[viii] Matthew 22:33, NIV

Give Back

MARK 12:13-17

Paying taxes. While an obligation / a responsibility, how many of us really like to do that? It's a common complaint heard in places far and wide. There's a constant "tax" pinch (or so it seems), and the pinch squeezes harder over time.

This "tax" pinch was a harsh reality in Palestine. The Jewish people were up against the wall, especially those who lived hand-to-mouth. Mandatory taxes were collected which went to Rome. How would you feel, if your taxes supported your oppressors? Or if you knew your hard-earned coins went to maintain pagan temples or the luxurious lives of the upper class?

As we delve into these five verses, let's review a bit of history. Prior to his death in 4 BC, Herod the Great -- who had considered himself "King of the Jews" -- ruled all of Palestine as a Roman tributary king. Once he died, his kingdom was divided into three -- for his sons: Antipas, Philip and Archelaus. For a view of Palestine in the time of Jesus, here's a link: Historical Map.

Notice on the map the tetrarchy of Antipas and Philip. But where is the tetrarchy of Archelaus? Well,... after several years, Rome removed Archelaus as a ruler and replaced him with a Roman governor. What once was a tributary kingdom became a province. Don't be fooled by the transition though. A tributary was one of submission, under pressure. The shift to a province was an administrative maneuver -- as well to offset unrest among the people. Military might increased.

An example of unrest (Acts 5:37) was Judas the Galilean who in 6-7 AD organized a movement to worship God alone and refused to pay taxes to Caesar. [i] Yet this movement wasn't just a protest; it became violent. Why? Because those who had little, which constituted the large majority of people, were left with even less. The pressure was unbearable.

Three taxes were being imposed: a ground tax, income tax and poll tax. The ground tax was paid in part with money and in-kind (one-tenth of all grain and one-fifth of the wine and fruit produced). The income tax was one percent of a man's income. The poll tax (also known as the census tax) was levied on all men from 14 years of age to 65, and all women from 12 years of age to 65. [ii] It sent Judas the Galilean over the edge.

How did Rome act in response to the movement? They crushed it. I'm sure you can guess how that ended for Judas the Galilean. All who followed the movement scattered.

Cut to: Jesus at the temple teaching the crowds. The tension is building though, as Jesus is not making friends in high places -- deemed as a threat. Two radically different groups -- one religious, the other political -- come together to form an alliance, at least for the moment. Consider it an alliance of convenience.

On the one hand, the Pharisees wanted Jewish theocracy restored -- for God to be recognized as the head of the state. They also opposed taxes being paid to Rome. On the other hand, the Herodians (extreme nationalists) fully supported the tax laws yet desired for the current Roman leadership to step down and be replaced by a descendant of Herod. Talk about an unsettling alliance. For these two groups to come together, they must have really wanted to get rid of Jesus, and how!

Their approach to Jesus begins with flattery. Disarm and then corner him with a question as to whether one should pay the tribute. If Jesus states the tribute (tax) is to be paid, he'll be labeled a traitor and disloyal. His power over the people will cease post-haste. If Jesus states the tribute shouldn't be paid, he'll be labeled a revolutionary, arrested and sentenced to death. Rome would crush him like Judas the Galilean.

Treason versus disloyalty. The scenario was seen as a win-win by the Pharisees and the Herodians.

Jesus responds to their question with a request, "Show me a denarius." This silver coin, minted under the Roman Emperor's authority, was the value of a day's wage for a Roman soldier. [iii] Another way to view the coin was in relation to the poll tax. The Romans counted all the citizens to determine who would pay the poll tax, which was... one denarius, [iv] and how much would be collected.

The crowd of commoners could easily relate to the impact of the denarius and their Roman oppressors. The coin held power and it validated those who ruled.

Side Note -- Isn't it interesting that Jesus didn't possess a coin?

"Whose image is on this coin?" "Caesar's" -- who at the time was Tiberius, otherwise known as Tiberius Caesar Augustus. All Roman Emperor's were called Caesar.

With a simple yet powerful statement, Jesus avoids the trap. "Give Caesar what is his, and give God what is his." He silences this alliance against him, which sends both groups away embarrassed and further frustrated. Their resentment against Jesus deepens.

Yet... how easy it is to overlook what this statement means. Jesus didn't even provide a Cliff Notes version to lay out what was to be given to Caesar and what was to be given to God.

What could Jesus have meant? Possibly...

* The ruling government rules your body (physical) -- having civil power. God rules your heart and mind (soul) -- having religious power.

* If you live under the rule of Caesar, you are obligated to pay the tax owed him. That is a "divine" obligation.

* If you receive benefits, your responsibility is to follow-through with appropriate payment. To give back.

Jesus' words are for deep reflection. While Caesar's image was on the coin, what about God's image? What is that on? Was the coin viewed as idolatrous since it had the image of Tiberius' face on it? How might Jesus' statement threaten tithing at the temple?

Give back. Marc * emphatically shared with the study group, "If you're going to believe Jesus and in what he says, you have to serve." That's your give back.  

Give back. A stronger, more subversive view of Jesus was presented by Leah *. "He was telling those in power to give back the land to the Jews." Give back to God what is God's.

Two things further in closing: a question and a prayer.

"What belongs to God that we should give back to God?"

The following prayer was incorporated into a recent worship service at Hollywood United Methodist Church. It was timely in how we may give back.

Gracious God, you have called us to be conformed to the image of Christ. Inspire us by his love and guide us by his example. Help us to embrace the world you have given us, that we may transform its darkness into light, its pain into joy, and its hatred into love. For we ask this in Jesus' name, Amen.

NEXT

Strike one -- the Pharisees, strike two -- the Herodians, and the next pitch -- the Sadducees!

---

[i] Jewish Annotated New Testament -- p. 85

[ii] The Gospel of Mark, Barclay -- p. 285

[iii] MacArthur Study Bible -- p. 1434

[iv] MacArthur Study Bible -- p. 1488

* Member of the study group

Was, Is and Will Be

MARK 12:1-12

Scripture states Jesus spoke to the gathered crowd at the temple in "parables." A parable, as we know, was meant to be heard, and its meanings sparked within each person in various ways. What sparked within you didn't necessarily spark within me.

Through the use of an allegory, spiritual meaning may be symbolized in the use of events or characters. It's used to illustrate a truth.

So what do we have here? A parable? An allegory?

While not all of the details here have inner meaning, there are definitely some which do. As we move forward, one could say this is a hybrid between a parable and an allegory.

Jesus wisely begins by using a descriptive setting to which the people can relate -- a vineyard. "The hillsides of Palestine were covered with grape vineyards, the backbone of the economy." [i]

By use of the vineyard, other elements were understood:

* The need for a fence to be in place -- to keep out unwanted animals like wild boars as well as potential robbers;

* A pit (wine vat) beneath the wine press -- the juice from the squeezed grapes would be collected in this basin;

* A watchtower -- to keep watch over the vineyard, for shelter, and for the purpose of storage.

Leviticus 19:23-25 provides insight in that after the initial planting of the vineyard, it would usually take five years for the vintage. If the owner followed the law, the first time for collecting the rental would be at the five-year mark. This could be an agreed-upon amount of money or a fixed percentage of the crop. [ii]

Thus an agreement would be made between the owner and tenant for use of the land in return for a share.

With these elements of common knowledge, what might be their underlying meanings?

In Isaiah 5:1-7 -- "The Song of the Unfruitful Vineyard" -- the vineyard is Israel. The fence surrounding the vineyard is designed to keep out corrupting influences. Some would consider the Gentile world to be such.

Regarding two key players, the owner of the vineyard is God with the tenants being the Jewish religious authorities. An "agreement" has been made between the two parties -- to take care of the vineyard (Israel). Yet as Marc * asked, "What kind of fruit will be produced?" An excellent question. These authorities and leaders were given an important responsibility -- to care for the spiritual welfare of the people.

To find out (to collect) what has been produced as time passes, other players are introduced in the story: servants/slaves. These individuals sent by the owner (God) are the prophets. Even though these messengers were continually rejected, God kept sending them.

Point of Clarity. It's easy to lump-sum "all" by the actions of "some" or "many." Case in point, not all of the people of Israel rejected this agreement/covenant made with God. Not all mistreated these "servants" -- the prophets.

Another way to view this, in regard to the fruit of the vineyard,… the grapes being produced were inedible -- being that of injustice and idolatry. The servants (prophets) returned empty-handed.

Gene * wisely stated, "God had to have seen something in the tenants to continue to send servants -- giving them a chance." Nonetheless, the religious authorities have put themselves ahead of God. They've selfishly determined their welfare is more important to them than that of the people.

Even in the face of continued rejection, the "owner" still had one -- his beloved son and heir -- who could be sent. Surely the tenants would respect his son.

Jesus had laid out what happened in the past and is now in the present. Verses 6 and 7 are on point. The veil has been removed. The "Son" has come. Jesus' message of Good News has been steadily building within the people of Israel and is picking up speed.

The issue of whose welfare is more important comes into play again. "This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours." This was truth. This was a direct shot at the Jewish authorities in that precise moment.

And will be…. Two verses follow, each with future consequences.

The statement made by Jesus (verse 8) couldn't be clearer, especially to the "tenants." "They seized him, killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard." Would the crowd though understand what Jesus said? Not in their view of the Messiah -- the conqueror who would make all things better. Who would comprehend its meaning? The religious authorities and leaders. It was an indictment against them. And they knew it!

Did they care? Not really -- not in their grand scheme of things. For them, the death of Jesus would put an end to this revolution. Then, all would be right in their world. Things would be better for themselves.

What would be considered inconceivable though is "the giving of the vineyard to others" (verse 9). No way, no how. Couldn't happen. Ever.

Not to get ahead -- of what will be destroyed -- Jesus quotes Psalm 118:22-23. The stone of which everything is based -- the "cornerstone" -- may be rejected by these builders (the authorities), but a house will be built for an emerging community. And this community will include Gentiles. What has been in the hands of one group will be given to another. Again, utterly inconceivable in the minds of the Jewish religious leaders.

As for the hoped-for fruit of the vineyard, what might that look like? Galatians 5:22-23 states it well. "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control." A fruit worthy of sharing with God and the world.

NEXT

Putting Jesus to the test -- pay or don't pay -- either way you'll ultimately pay; who rules what

---

[i] MacArthur Study Bible -- p. 1487

[ii] The Gospel of Mark, Barclay -- p. 282

* Member of the study group