By
Sakae Kubo
A Commentary on the Sabbath
School Lesson for May 21–27, 2005
:
On Sunday, Jesus had made his triumphal
entry into Jerusalem. On Monday, he had cleansed the Temple
of the money changers. These events galvanized all who were
opposed to him. Mark says that after Jesus cleansed the temple,
"And when the chief priests and the scribes heard it,
they kept looking for a way to kill him; for they were afraid
of him, because the whole crowd was spellbound by his teaching"
(Mark 11:18).
Though maintaining opposing views on various
issues, the opposition of the chief priests and scribes to
Jesus made them strange bedfellows. This week’s lesson—whose
events follow the cleansing of the Temple—show how they
tried to trap Jesus by tricky questions so they could arrest
him or raise opposition against him.
The questioners: The chief priests, the
scribes, and the elders (Notice the same group mentioned in
14:43, 53, 15:1, apparently members of the Sanhedrin.)
The question: "By what authority
are you doing these things? Who gave you this authority
to do them?"
The answer they wanted: What do you think
they wanted him to say ? How would his answer have led
to Jesus’ arrest?
His answer: A question regarding the authority
of John’s baptism. This put them in a quandary and they
didn’t want to answer either way so Jesus refused to
answer their question.
This is a parable rather than an answer
to a question. It is a continuation of the previous account.
It is apparently directed at the chief priests, scribes, and
elders who had asked him the previous question. It is a warning
of what they can expect if they continue their plans regarding
Jesus. This parable is similar to that in Isaiah 5, but instead
of the vineyard being to blame, as in Isaiah, here it is the
tenants.
The questioners: The Pharisees and Herodians.
What positions did they hold in regard to the question raised?
The question: "Is it lawful to pay
taxes to the emperor, or not?"
The answer they wanted: Whether he said
yes or no would have put him in opposition to one of the questioners.
His answer: How would you interpret what
Jesus said? What if the state’s requirement goes
beyond what God commands? How would a Christian conduct
himself in Hitler’s Germany? A black Christian in
a Jim Crow society?
The questioners: Sadducees. Who were the
Sadducees? What was their position regarding this issue?
The question: In the resurrection, whose
wife would a woman be who had married seven brothers, all
without children?
The answer they wanted: They simply wanted
to stump Jesus and show the absurdity of the resurrection.
His answer: You don’t know the Scriptures
or the power of God. What did Jesus mean by this?
The questioner: A scribe
The question: Which commandment is the
first of all?
The answer he wanted: What do you think
was the answer the scribe expected? Did he expect what
he got or did he expect something else? What other answers
were possibilities? There were attempts being made to
distinguish between heavy and light and great and little commandments
and also to summarize these commandments to great principles.
Cranfield in his Commentary on Mark
refers to Hillel, who was challenged by a Gentile. "Make
me a proselyte on condition that you teach me the whole Law
while I stand on one foot," said the Gentile. Replied
Hillel: "What you hate for yourself, do not do to your
neighbor: this is the whole Law, the rest is commentary; go
and learn."
The scribe’s response to Jesus refers
to burnt offerings and sacrifices. Is there an intimation
that some may think these were as important as loving God
and neighbor?
Jesus’ answer: Did Jesus answer the
scribe’s question accurately? In other words, did
Jesus tell him only which commandment is the first? Why
did Jesus add a second?
The previous section closes with the statement
that "After that, no one dared to ask him any question.
" So this confrontation has a different format from the
others. Here, Jesus is the questioner.
The questioner: Jesus questions the scribes
who say that the Messiah is the son of David.
The question: How can the scribes say
that Messiah is the Son of David? Why would Jesus say
this when the blind Bartimaeus calls him "Jesus, Son
of David," without being corrected in Mark 10:47–48,
and Matthew and the other Gospels all routinely call him the
Son of David?
His answer: He answers with a question.
After quoting Psalm 110, he asks, "David himself calls
him Lord; so how can he be his son?" Psalm 110 was
interpreted messianically in the New Testament (1 Cor. 15:25).
"Yahweh says to my lord (the Messiah)."
If the Messiah is the son of David, how
then does David call him "my lord." How can the
son of David be also his Lord? Why does he ask this question?
He raises this question in order to stimulate their thinking
that if this is the case, then he is more than just the Son
of David. If David acknowledges his son as his lord then the
Messiah is no mere mortal.
Matthew’s Gospel (22:41–46)
has the Pharisees answering that the Messiah is the son of
David, and then Jesus asks this question. (Jesus asks the
Pharisees whose son is the Messiah and they answer "David."
And then Jesus asks, "How is it then that David by the
Spirit calls him Lord, saying ’The Lord said to my Lord,
"Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under
your feet"’? If David thus calls him Lord,
how can he be his son?")
Mark puts this account in a more difficult
arrangement.
The Jewish leaders charge against Jesus was
blasphemy, but before Pilate they charged Jesus with treason.
The questions they asked were either to lead him to blaspheme
or to speak against the Roman government. This is true with
the question concerning authority and whether or not they
should pay taxes. The Sadducees were trying to show how absurd
his position was in comparison to theirs.
EMAIL THIS ARTICLE
|
