And the Lord God of their fathers sent to them by his messengers, rising up betimes, and sending; because he had compassion on his people, and on his dwelling place: But they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and misused his prophets, until the wrath of the Lord arose against his people, till there was no remedy (2 Chron. 36:15-16).

In chapter 12 of the Gospel of Mark, Jesus stands in the Father’s authority and counsel against an onslaught of religious and political factions that resent his influence with the people. His strength arises from the Almighty; mere fleshly will succumbs in His Presence. We readers need to see this utter rout, to see Jesus run circles around his adversaries, for the events that shortly will come to pass would tell of defeat and death at the hands of “the rulers of darkness of this world” (Eph. 6:12). The chief priests, scribes, and elders; the Pharisees and the Herodians; and the Sadducees all approach Jesus with deceit and lust for power defiling their hearts and mouths. Jesus sees and exposes the specific errors that characterize each group.

Priests, elders, scribes (1-12)

[H]e sent him also last unto them, saying, They will reverence my son (6).

Chapter 11 ended with Jesus’s refusal to give the chief priests, scribes, and elders an answer to their demand to name the authority by which he acts. In the first nine verses of chapter 12, he answers this question in a roundabout way: by presenting these religious leaders with a parable. In this parable, the owner, builder, and lord of the vineyard (1) is God; the tenants or managers to whom He has rented the vineyard (1) are the chief priests, scribes, and elders; the servants sent to gather the fruits of the vineyard (2-5) are the prophets; and “his own dear son”(6) is Jesus himself. Jesus has not only conveyed that he, as son, acts upon his Father’s authority but that these religious leaders oppose that authority, and consequently, “the lord of the vineyard” will destroy them and give their position of privilege and responsibility to others (9). 

But the tenants said to one another, “This is the heir; come on, let us kill him, and the property will be ours.” So they seized him and killed him, and flung his body out of the vineyard. What will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and put the tenants to death and give the vineyard to others (7-9 NEB).¹  

Jesus adds to this damning parable by quoting verses from a psalm,² which squarely puts him in line with the tradition, thereby dislodging these religious leaders from their alleged stronghold. He completes the drubbing by attributing all to “the Lord’s doing,” depicting himself simply as an astonished onlooker: “This was the Lord’s doing and it is marvellous in our eyes” (11). That he presents himself as an observer rather than the proprietor of his words tells us that throughout this lengthy monologue (1-11), he has never lost sight of this group’s initial challenge to name the authority by which he acts: it is “the Lord’s doing,” not his own. His intelligence is dizzyingly brilliant and is itself proof of his reliance upon divine power and authority.

The scribes, whom he addresses in this parable, were those whose profession was to know the Law. This work required a scholarly intelligence: one that is agile and diligent in recollection, analysis, and research. The intelligence that Jesus manifests is not scholarly; it is instead grounded in the Source of intelligence, and as such, surpasses all delimited expressions of that power: scholarly, sensory, social, technical, or creative intelligence.

Scholars, such as the scribes, have tried throughout history to put themselves forward in matters of spiritual discernment, not grasping that revelation given through the prophetic sensibility is distinct from and beyond their own intellectual capacities.³ Accustomed to their natural, fleshly knowledge securing for themselves a position of repute among the fleshly minded (38-39), some scholars⁴ become unsettled when shown that their type of knowledge is not key to spiritual understanding. As the poet said,

Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? / Where is the knowledge we have lost in information? The cycles of Heaven in twenty centuries / Bring us farther from God and nearer to the Dust.⁵

Herodians and Pharisees (13-17)

Whose is this image and superscription? And they said unto him, Caesar’s. And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s (17).

In this brief interaction, Jesus brings into view the primary moral fault of both groups that approach him: the Herodians and the Pharisees. The Herodians were not a religious sect but a small political party that had joined forces with the larger, more powerful Pharisees.⁶ Solely concerned with political power, they had thus rendered themselves in totality unto “Caesar,” and thus had failed to render “to God the things that are God’s.”

The Pharisees here and elsewhere are shown to attend solely to the externalities of religion⁷ (Mk. 7:1-23); inwardly they are at variance with their outward demeanor and claims. In this passage, their hypocrisy is evident in their true but malevolent words (14) that cloak the intent “to catch [Jesus] in his words” (13). In keeping to their outward orientation, they ask Jesus about the act of giving tribute to Caesar: “Shall we give, or shall we not give?” (15) Jesus not only escapes the trap they lay for him⁸ but also points to the Pharisees’ failure to give tribute to God. For just as the penny is imprinted with Caesar’s image, so is man created in the image of God: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them” (Gen. 1:27). And as the penny bearing Caesar’s image belongs to Caesar, so man, created in the image of God, belongs to Him. Jesus has moved the Pharisees’ attention from outward activity – paying or not paying tribute – to the inward, core obligation of man: to render himself unto God.

Sadducees (18-27)

The one defining mark of the Sadducees that is given in this passage is that they “say there is no resurrection” (18). According to the historian Josephus, they also denied divine Providence.⁹ Because the Sadducees’ understanding is stunted and their ignorance made insufferable by their smug, contemptuous manner, Jesus offers them nothing but a mirror to their mockery.¹⁰

The scribe (28-34)

In this passage, a thoughtful, earnest scribe asks Jesus, “Which is the first commandment of all?” (28) Up to this point, the chapter has featured one group of people after another, all claiming to revere and follow the Law yet all perverting the intent of the Law, which is to prepare its adherents to receive the kingdom of God. In contrast, this sole scribe, this individual, displays all the qualities necessary for entry into the kingdom: He has good discernment, “perceiv[ing] that he [Jesus] had answered them [the Sadducees] well” (28). He has an active desire to know, asking, “Which is the first commandment of all?” (28) He has a regard for truth, stating, “Well, Master, thou hast said the truth” (32). He is receptive, capable of learning, showing his grasp through his repetition of Jesus’s teaching (32-33).

Chapter 12 has presented a hornets’ nest of adversaries: the chief priests, the scribes, the elders, the Herodians, the Pharisees, and the Sadducees. After Jesus has defeated and dismissed them all, however, there appears one, lone scribe who rises to the challenge of being, who faithfully responds to Truth; he, in his inward life, is thus prepared: “And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God” (34). This story of the single individual exemplifies the promise that the human being can rise in response to his calling, despite the surrounding wickedness or apathy to which humanity largely succumbs.

David’s Lord or son

As if to quell any mistaken assumption that he supports the scribes as a group, Jesus directs his next two speeches against them (35, 38). In the first speech (35-37), Jesus shows his deep comprehension of the tradition’s writings and contrasts that understanding with that of the scribes as a group, who can go no deeper than face-value literalism: the Messiah is to be “the son of David” (35), which to the scribes means that the Messiah is to be in the Davidic line. Jesus taunts them and their literalness by pointing out the contradiction: “David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son?” (37)

The deeper, spiritual meaning of sonship is to have the essential nature of one who has come before. David and Jesus both manifested their kingship in Israel in that they each relied upon their Lord God; sat at His right hand, heard and carried out His commands; and thus saw their enemies defeated beneath their feet. It is this Lord that David, in large measure, consulted and that Jesus, without measure, embodied. That his flesh embodied the spirit of the Lord without measure qualifies Jesus as the Messiah and Lord.  

This vignette has another function: it alludes to the many enemies Jesus has defeated earlier, as if to say, his sitting at the Lord’s right hand – his attending to the Father’s counsel – is the means by which he has vanquished the chief priests, scribes, elders, Pharisees, etc. Jesus has demonstrated and now teaches the people that in righteousness and reliance upon the Lord God, their strength to overcome worldly oppression is realized. “And the common people heard him gladly” (37).

The practice of religion (38-44)

The final two teachings in this chapter consist of contrasting examples of the practice of religion: practice that is corrupt or superficial (38-41) as opposed to practice that is genuine and profound (42-44). Briefly summarized, the corruption in the scribes consists of relishing the perks that come with their privileged profession, using their power to take from the weak, and hiding their sin behind sanctimony. “These shall receive greater damnation,” (38-40) Jesus avers. Superficial practice of religion entails proportioning some of one’s worldly assets to its service (41), and perhaps in return enjoying an easy conscience and the esteemed aura of social respectability.

True expression of Christ-knowing religion arises in those who have realized that the world contains neither power nor riches to inwardly suffice (a condition symbolized by “the poor widow” [42]).¹¹ Suffering this truth, they willingly with gladness give over “even all [one’s] living” (44). That is to say, we eagerly give over every resource of our personhood in love to God: “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” (30).

All Friends and brethren every where, walk in the truth, and know one another in the measure of life, that in it your minds may be guided up to the Father of life; and stand in his counsel, that he alone may be loved with all your strength, with all your minds, and with all your souls; so that ye may all know one another in the life and light, that ye may all be kept from idols. For if ye know one another in the flesh only, that love which will rise out of that knowledge is feigned, and that will wither, and under the condemnation of the light must come.¹² — George Fox

¹ The King James Version is used except where otherwise noted, such as here where I used The New English Bible.

^{2 “}And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner: This was the Lord’s doing and it is marvellous in our eyes” (10-11). Jesus is quoting Psalm 118, verses 22 and 23.

³  In his Journal, Fox tells of man who intended to set up a college to make ministers of Christ by making them scholars of “Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and the seven arts, which [Fox writes] were all but the teachings of the natural man, [and] not the way to make them ministers of Christ. . . . Then we showed him further,  that Christ made his ministers himself, gave gifts unto them, and bid them ‘Pray to the Lord of the harvest to send forth labourers’” (The Works of George Fox [Philadelphia: Marcus T. C. Gould, 1831],  1:362-3). A reading of this passage can be found at patradallmann.com/2020/10/14/in-spirit-and-in-truth/.

⁴ Not every scholar is unsettled by the prophetic sensibility; some welcome the contribution, as is shown by the scribe who appears in verses 28 through 34.

⁵ T. S. Eliot, “The Rock,” Bentley Historical Library, accessed August 17, 2023, https://bentley.umich.edu/elecrec/d/duderstadt/Speeches/JJDS6/jjd1341.pdf.

⁶ “Whatever their [unknown] political aims, [the Herodians] early perceived that Christ’s pure and spiritual teaching on the kingdom of God was irreconcilable with these, and that Christ’s influence with the people was antagonistic to their interests” (The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1939], 3:1383).

⁷ “Jesus denounced the Pharisees more than He denounced any other class of the people. This seems strange when we remember that the main body of the religious people, those who looked for the Messiah, belonged to the Pharisees, and His teaching and theirs had a strong external resemblance. It was this external resemblance, united as it was with a profound spiritual difference, which made it incumbent on Jesus to mark Himself off from them. All righteousness with them was external, it lay in meats and drinks and divers washings. . . . He placed religion on a different footing, removed it into another region. With Him it was the heart that must be right with God, not merely the external actions; not only the outside of the cup and platter was to be cleansed, but the inside first of all” (Encyclopaedia, 4:2365).

⁸ For Jesus to advise not to give tribute would put him at odds with the ruling political power, the Romans, while to advise giving tribute to Rome (Caesar) would alienate him from the people.

⁹ The encyclopedia goes on to say that “[t]heir theology might be called ‘religion within the limits of mere sensation,’” (Encyclopaedia, 4:2660), making the Sadducees the philosophical materialists of their day.

¹⁰ Closer examination of this passage can be found in an earlier essay titled “Right Use of Our Tradition (Some Observations on Mark 12:18-34).” In that essay, the Sadducees’ superficial understanding of the tradition is contrasted with the deeper understanding of a single scribe; the two passages are back-to-back: the Sadducees passage running from verses 18 to 27, and the single scribe passage beginning at 28 and ending at 34.

¹¹ This same idea was expressed by George Fox: “[A]nd I saw all the world could do me no good. If I had had a king’s diet, palace, and attendance, all would have been as nothing, for nothing gave me comfort but the Lord by his power” (Works, 1:75).

¹² Thanks to Esther Murer and John Edminster for their work on the Quaker Bible Index where I found this particular quotation (Works, 7:129).

Christ Rebukes the Scribes (Unknown artist)