Gospel of Mark/Chapter 12:18-34/Commentary

The Gospel of Mark Chapter 12:18-34 12:18 “And some Sadducees (who say that there is no resurrection) came to Him, and began questioning Him”: Josephus tells us that the Sadducees started about the same time as the Pharisees in the days of Jonathan, the high priest (B.C. 159-144). McGarvey notes that while the Pharisees sought to separate themselves from non-Jewish peoples, the Sadducees sought a freer relationship with the pagans. They rejected all the human traditions of the Pharisees, but they interpreted the Scriptures as loosely as possible. “Some take their name to mean ‘the party of righteousness’, but more think that it comes from their founder, Zadok, and is a corruption of the word Zadokite, Zadok flourished 260 B.C.. His teacher, Antigonus Sochaeus, taught him to serve God disinterestedly—that is, without hope of reward or punishment. From this teaching Zadok inferred that there was no future state of rewards or punishment and on this belief founded his sect.

From this fundamental doctrine sprang the other tenets of the Sadducees. They denied all the four points of belief held by the Pharisees asserting that there was no resurrection; no rewards and punishments hereafter; no angels, nor spirits.

They believed that there was a God, but denied that He had any special supervision of human affairs (Matthew 22:33; Acts 23:8. They were the 1

materialists of that day. Considering all God’s promises as referring to this world, they looked upon poverty and distress as an evidence of God’s curse. Hence to relieve the poor was to sin against God by interfering with His mode of government. Far fewer than the Pharisees, they were their rivals in power; for they were the aristocratic party, and held the high priesthood, with all its glories.

Their high political position, their great wealth, and the Roman favor which they courted by consenting to foreign rule and pagan customs, made them a body to be respected and feared” (McGarvey pp. 72-73).

This is the "party" to which the chief-priestly families belonged. In contrast to the Pharisees, who were often from the middle-class, the Sadducees derived its members from the Jewish aristocracy, and was virtually a closed society. While the Pharisees laid great stress on the traditions of the elders, the Sadducees claimed to limit their beliefs to the doctrines they could find in the first five books of the O.T. They denied the existence of the soul, angels, spirits and the resurrection (Acts 23:8). Stott notes, “They were the ruling class of wealthy aristocrats. Politically, they ingratiated themselves with the Romans, and followed a policy of collaboration, so that they feared the subversive implications of the apostles' teaching. Theologically, they believed that the Messianic age had begun in the Maccabean period; so they were not looking for the Messiah” p. 95). ”A small but powerful party of the priestly nobles who were supported by the temple dues, and had come to regard religion as a matter of profitable living rather than a service to God. They disliked any popular movement which might disturb the steady accumulation of temple revenues” (Boles p. 64) See John 11:47-50.

They demanded that everything be understood rationally and not based on hearsay oral tradition. But the basic attitude of this small but powerful faction was what might be termed “ecclesiastic opportunism” using religion for private gain. “They apparently prided themselves on being no-nonsense, realistic people who based their philosophy on the common-sense view of this material world while considering anything metaphysical as a hypothetical superstition. They ended up with a religion without the supernatural” (Fowler p. 215).

They denied every phase of the world of the spirit. Apparently, they reasoned that to deny a resurrection is conceivably the door into that world. “Deny the door and you deny what is on the other side”. Jesus’ answer, then, consisted essentially of 2

showing that those living people who are on the other side of death’s barrier really exist. Like modern Jehovah Witnesses or Seventh Day Adventists and some other groups, the Sadducees did not believe that man has a soul.

The Sadducees only accepted the first five books of the Old Testament as the Word of God. The Mosaic code confirmed the authority of the priests and so the Law would be especially dear to the Sadducean priesthood. “Because the prophets exposed the perversion of the hierarchical aristocracy and preached the uselessness of ritual without righteousness, their writings would be particularly unwelcome” (Fowler pp. 216-217).

Some have attempted to argue that the concept of a resurrection was not known in Israel until just a century or so prior to the appearance of Jesus. Yet this completely ignores Abraham’s bold faith, who steadfastly confided in the power of God to raise Isaac from the dead (Genesis 21:12; 22:1-18 interpreted by Hebrews 11:19).

12:19 “Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies, and leaves behind his wife, and leaves no child, his brother should take the wife, and raise up offspring to his brother”: The Sadducees bring up the Levirate marriage which is recorded in Deuteronomy 25:5f. In addition the quotation here also borrows from Genesis 38:8. This particular law in the Old Testament was designed to preserve the family line and heritage by continuing the principle of family lineage and by blocking the dispersion of the family patrimony. The children conceived received the dead brother’s property and in the genealogical record carried on his name rather than that of their physical parent. The aim of the Sadducees is to take legislation in the Law and apply it to the afterlife (which they did not believe in) in order to show how ridiculous the doctrine of the resurrection sounded. In essence, they were attempting to do what a number of people try to do today, that is, use God’s law against believers, or create hypothetical situations that seem to undermine God’s law. I have seen many people attempt to play this game—and like this example in Scripture, I have never seen anyone win.

12:20-23 “There were seven brothers; and the first took a wife, and died, leaving no offspring. And the second one took her, and died, leaving behind no 3

offspring; and the third likewise; and so all seven left no offspring. Last of all the woman died also. In the resurrection, when they rise again, which one’s wife will she be? For all seven had her as wife” Well they think they really have Jesus in a pickle. Many hypothetical situations sound difficult on the surface, but dig and little and you will often find that they fall apart under the microscope of truth. The Sadducees entire argument was based on the assumption that life in a supposed after-life would be identical with life on the earth. Mormons and others make the same mistake thinking that marriage, childbirth, and so on are all parts of the after-life. They further assumed that our present, natural body, with all its present earth-life needs must be identical to the resurrected body (1 Corinthians 15:35-38). Unfortunately, the Pharisees seem to have shared this view (i.e., a very material heaven). This would probably explain why they had been so unsuccessful in refuting the Sadducees on this point.

12:24 “Jesus said to them”: He did not need a moment to ponder the question.

He had a ready answer. “Is this not the reason you are mistaken”: Not only is Jesus going to address their question, but He is equally going to explain why they ended up at the wrong conclusion. Here is their basic problem. “That you do not understand the Scriptures”: They are dead wrong about what the Bible said.

Their hypothetical situation assumed that people are married in the after-life. The Scriptures do not teach such! The Sadducees were ignorant of what the Old Testament Scriptures actually taught concerning the resurrection: Job 19:25f; Psalm 169-11; 17:15; 23:4-6; 49:13-15; 73:23-28; Ecclesiastes 12:5-14; Daniel 12:2-3; 2 Samuel 12:20-23. “In fact they show amazing ignorance of the translation of Enoch (Genesis 5:24). They also ignored Elijah’s marvelous translation (2 Kings 2:1). And what about all the other examples of resurrections from the dead? (1 Kings 17:22; 2 Kings 4:35; 13:21)?

“Nor the power of God”: They had zero confidence in God’s power to raise people from the dead and create an existence and after-life completely different from this world. These are two very common reasons why people end up in error.

They are not careful students of the Scriptures, and they do not believe what God said that He or can do. A perfect example of this today is religious people who reject the Genesis account of Creation. They just can’t believe that God could 4

have created the world in six days. Or, why people reject the idea of hell. They just can’t believe that God is as offended as He says He is concerning our sins.

They had a very limited view of God’s power. Like so many people, they seemed to reject anything that did not make sense of them or anything that they viewed as impossible. “Their view is typical of modern rationalists who would deny the resurrection’s truth because they cannot conceive of how it could occur” (Fowler p. 224).

The Sadducees had rejected the clear teaching that all things are possible with God (Genesis 18:14). Once a person starts denying spiritual realities they end up with a very small and limited God. Such men did not have the faith of Abraham (Romans 4:18-22). “Cannot the Creator of Adam, who originally gathered the scattered, unliving dust and made man live, regather all the particles of all the dead and raise them to eternal life? What kind of god do these unbelieving priests have anyway?” (Fowler p. 224).

12:25 “For when they rise from the dead they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven”: Their entire argument was based on an unproven assumption. The proof-text that they had used had said nothing about man’s condition in heaven. The urgency in Ecclesiastes 9:9 concerning enjoying life with one’s wife inferred that this relationship was not eternal. In fact, the very Scripture the Sadducees used proved the same thing. That is, if the widow could remarry, was proof that the first marriage had ended in God’s sight and therefore the marriage relationship only governs those in this life.

1. 12:25 “But are like angels”: I like the fact that Jesus brought up “angels”, for the Sadducees did not believe in them either! (Acts 23:8). There is a valuable lesson here, when a person rejects one biblical teaching, they always end up rejecting others. One cannot simply be in error on one point for truth is an entire package, and all sorts of teachings are interconnected.

This statement also teaches some truths about heaven. The future life is not simply a repetition of this age. Jesus urges us to rethink, because there can be something richer and fuller, more deeply satisfying to the soul than even marriage and the family as we know it. “Marriage’s joy of close, intimate and lasting fellowship will not be replaced by solitude. Rather, it 5

will be replaced by fellowship far closer, more intimate and longer lasting than anything we can now imagine” (Fowler p. 229). There is no need for marriage, because we do not die and therefore there is no need to repopulate heaven.

12:26 “But regarding the fact that the dead rise again”: This teaching is a fact---it is not a myth or opinion. “Have you not read in the book of Moses”: The very Scriptures that they claimed to follow support the fact that the dead do rise and that man survives the death of the body. “In the passage about the burning bush, how God spoke to him”: The quotation here is from Exodus 3:6.  Jesus emphatically states that Scripture is spoken by God.  Jesus clearly states that Moses is the author of Exodus (Luke 20:37; Mark 12:26)  After nearly 1500 years, the Scriptures are still the Word of God.  Even though the initial conversation was between God and Moses, Jesus states that what God said to Moses is also God speaking to us. When we read the Bible we are listening to what God is saying to us right now. “That such truth was first revealed to an ancient people living thousands of years ago, does not lessen any of its force for us” (Fowler p. 232).  Man does not need any mystical illumination or special inspiration to receive God’s message.  “Contrary to modern critics who see Israel’s concept of resurrection or of life after death as gradually learned from Egypt, Mesopotamia, or Greece, Jesus leaves no room for a late discovery of the resurrection idea. Rather, He traces its origin to God and in that which was spoken to you by God” (Fowler p. 232).

12:26 “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?”: Have you guys never read this passage? The reason that Jesus uses this text is because before Jesus can prove a resurrection He must establish the point that man has a spirit that can be reunited with the body at the resurrection. In addition, He is going to use a passage that the Sadducees would accept.In the above passage, God spoke of Himself as being the “God of” men who were physically dead. Yet the Sadducees held that a dead man had ceased to exist, that he had vanished into nothingness. According to their view, God had styled Himself as the God of nothing or non-existent persons, which is absurd.

6

Notice that Jesus used the details in a Scripture (individual words, tense and so on), to establish important doctrines. When we study the Scriptures we do need to study them diligently and carefully (2 Timothy 2:15). We must reject that “as long as we get the general idea” that God is pleased.

Jesus uses what we might call a necessary inference here. Consider very carefully how Jesus argues in this section of Scripture. The Sadducees had denied the future resurrection of the physical body, because they assumed that man didn't have a soul, hence nothing exists to be reunited with the body (Acts 23:8).

Josephus said concerning the Sadducees that they “take away the belief of the immortal duration of the soul. That the souls die with the bodies” (Wars, II. 8.14.; Antiquities, XVIII, 1.4.). Jesus cuts to the heart of the matter, with one Scripture He proves that man does exist apart from the body. He quotes from Exodus 3:6 (Matthew 22:32), “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”. When God said this, all three men were long dead. And yet the necessary inference or logical conclusion from the use of the phrase “I am”, demands that all three men were and are still alive, though not physically. For God doesn't maintain relationships with non-existence persons. Jesus states the necessary inference He drew from that Scripture, “He is not the God of the dead but of the living”. Points to seriously note: Jesus was comfortable in using necessary inference to establish essential biblical doctrines. Jesus had rebuked the Sadducees for “not understanding the Scriptures” (22:29). Therefore, God expects us to draw these necessary inferences from His word. And if we don't, then we will fail to properly understand His revelation (Ephesians 5:17).

12:27 “He is not the God of the dead, but of the living; you are greatly mistaken”: To be wrong about a biblical doctrine is to be greatly mistaken.

The Question Concerning the Great Commandment 12:28 “And one of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that He had answered them well, asked Him, ‘What commandment is the foremost of all?’”

“According to the statement of Jewish writers, there had been an old and interminable dispute among the rabbis as to which was the greatest commandment. Some held that it was the law which commanded sacrifices; 7

others, that which commanding the wearing of phylacteries; others contended for those about purification; others, for those about the great feasts. But as they reckoned the commandments of Moses as numbering over six hundred, there was plenty of room for argument” (McGarvey p. 603).

The scribes argued that the Law contained “heavy” and “light” precepts, but they differed on which commandments belonged to each category. The lawyer seems sincere in wanting to know the answer to this age-old debate. The Pharisees may have supported this question because at least it might give them some room to argue with Jesus, that is, if He backed a command such as circumcision or tithing, they were prepared to argue for another command.

“With 613 commandments to choose form, in a battlefield already scarred with positions previously taken and abandoned, regardless of what He picks, we can always argue the relative importance of others in that bewilderingly wide field of laws both religious and civil, moral and ritual, home and foreign, public and private. At any rate we can discredit His wisdom” (Fowler p. 251) In addition, the Pharisees may be attempting to goad Jesus into making another statement that would anger the Sadducees and thus motivate them to arrest Him. If Jesus downplayed the importance of the things in the Law with His answer this might give the Sadducees ample cause to indict Him.  The motive for asking this question could be the desire to find one law which may be kept in place of observing the whole law. Yet such a motive overlooks the fact that ignoring even one commandment is tantamount to violating the entire law (James 2:10).  Another motive could be to find one law that gives sense, direction, purpose and strength for keeping the whole Law.  The lawyers question could also be something like, “what sort of characteristic must a commandment have in order to be accounted great?  By seeking to entrap Jesus, the Pharisees demonstrate by their actions how little they understood the real answer to this question. In their opposition to Jesus they were neither practicing a love for God or for their neighbor.

8

12:29-30 “Jesus answered, ‘The foremost is ‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength’” I am impressed that Jesus did not hesitate, nor did He need any time to think about this question. Consider the ease and quickness by which Jesus answers even the most hotly debated questions. We also need to remember that we have this type of wisdom available to us in the Scriptures (John 16:13; 2 Timothy 3:1617). This is a quotation from Deuteronomy 6:4-5.

“You shall love”: “To love God means to long for His fellowship, to delight in Him, to appreciate all His attributes, His justice, love, patience, mercy, power, and plans, to show zeal for His honor. It is an unlimited constant readiness to obey anything He says and to imitate His character. To love God completely means to love what He loves, to love what is His, especially to love the man God made in His own image (1 John 4:20). To love God truly means to fear Him above all else, trust Him no matter what, esteem Him for all that He does, adore Him and depend upon Him” (Fowler p.

252). In light of the above statement, do we presently love God as we should? Be impressed that such a love is not only possible, but within the reach of every human being. God never commands or expects the impossible for us. In addition, such a love is realistic, for mankind routinely loves other people, things, or themselves with a love that is equally intense.

“With all your heart”: The center of our feelings, desires, and will. To love God genuinely, sincerely, and ardently. This means to desire God fully, just as we say, “put your heart into it”. This is a love that is not forced.

“With all your soul”: “Soul, then emphasizes our readiness to surrender our life to Him, living it out in devoted service and being ready to die for Him, if faithfulness to Him requires it” (Fowler p. 253).

“With all your mind”: That is loving God with our intellect and reason. Notice that the little word “all” is associated with each one of these statements. Too many people love God partially or only love Him up to a certain point. Others feel that the Christian can live in two worlds, that is, be loyal to God with their heart or emotions, yet not serve Him with the use of their reason or body. Jesus rather taught that love for God means nothing unless the total man loves God. “Deep sincere beliefs held 9

about God, not blind, unthinking devotion nor unreasoning, mystic contemplation.

Our faith must be intelligent, based on evidence reasonably evaluated. Dedicating all our intellectual abilities and efforts to Him. We are to use our critical faculties to study or learn everything we can about God and His will. This dedication of mind to God’s service is the only justifiable reason for Christian scholarship. But where pride in one’s own intellectual accomplishments becomes supreme, one no longer uses his mind to love God. Intelligent understanding of all we do, whether in worship or service, not mindless ‘religious’ motion. A mind disconnected whether in prayer or praise supposedly prompted by the Spirit, is condemned (1 Corinthians 14:14-19)” (Fowler p. 254).

“And with all your strength”: Refers both to our physical strength and the spiritual vitality of our inner man, that is, to all the energy we have both mentally, emotionally, spiritually and physically. We should note that none of these concepts are very far apart. “This leaves no room for divided loyalties or partial affections” (Fowler p. 254).

Lenski notes, “If our Creator, who unquestionably understands us better than we could ever know ourselves, used every term He knew we would grasp to indicate our complex, spiritual and physical nature, one must pronounce false and misleading all simplistic theories of man that see him as a mere animal, a mere machine or a mere anything. What a high view of man God holds! We are not computer cards deterministically programmed nor mere numbers, but mean ‘fearfully and wonderfully made’ (Psalm 139:14)” (Matthew p. 880). Be impressed that the above command calls upon every individual to rise above their circumstances or environment, and love God with their entire being. We do have a choice of whom we love and whom we serve.

“The word ‘whole’ (all) in the three phases receives great emphasis because of its very repetition. God will have no mere part, allow no division or subtraction. Not even the smallest corner is to be closed against God. The whole heart, the seat of our personality; the soul, our sentiment being itself: and the whole mind, the entire activity of this our being is to turn to God in love” (Lenski pp. 880-881).

We need to be impressed that if God expects such a love, then He is this lovable.

There is a great reward that awaits the person who seeks to know God and find out

10

everything possible about Him. Such a person will find a God with whom one can fall in love and love more than anything else in this life.

12:31 “The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself’. There is no other commandment greater than these”: The lawyer had only asked for the greatest commandment but Jesus must quickly point out another, which is a necessary companion to the first. Both command “love” that motivates one to do what the law directs towards God or their fellow man (Romans 13:8-10; Galatians 5:14; James 2:8ff; 1 Corinthians 13:1ff). “Our love for God must be the precondition and inspiration for love for our fellows. It is only when we love God’s view of man that we can learn to love man too. Only when we see in man what God sees in him can we begin to love him. Thus the definitive foundation of true humanity is our appreciation of God. Remove this, and our idealism degenerates into cynicism because man’s resistance to change will frustrate us. Human ingratitude will make us pessimistic about man’s perfectibility and quench the enthusiasm of our ideals. So the true foundation of a broad, unrelenting, indomitable love for man must be deeply rooted in the staying power we derive from a loving God who renews our vision of what man can become” (Fowler p. 256).

Jesus has already defined as anyone we can help (Luke 10:29-36). Jesus assumes that the vast majority of mankind rightly love themselves, or knows how to do this (Ephesians 5:29). Jesus did not say “love your neighbor instead of yourself”, but rather, “love him as yourself”. This demands a certain form of self-love. That love must be a genuine appreciation of our own dignity and worth as men and women created in the image of God. It must be a love that only desires to do what is in the best interest of our relationship with God. On a practical level this means treating people as you would want to be treated (Matthew 7:12). Placing their spiritual interests as important as your own spiritual interests, loving their soul as much as you love your own soul, giving them the same considerations, encouragement, support, understanding, and help that you need.

Fowler notes that the Christian, “knows and accepts his own worth and does not have to prove himself by trampling the rights of others. Rather, his newfound selfrespect gives him insight into what it means to have appropriate respect for others.

11

But God taught him to love himself, live with himself, and gave him courage to face himself in the mirror. Sensing what this means to himself, he can now appreciate what it means to bring others to this same joy. He can now love others as himself” (p. 258). “The true basis for all democracy is in fact the love of God. Take away the love of God and we can become angry at man the unteachable; we can become pessimistic about man the unimprovable; we can become callous to man the machine-minder” (Barclay p. 308).

12:31 “There is no other commandment greater than these”: Because all other commandments spring from these two. Every command in the Bible is an act of love directed towards God many involve the second as well.

12:32-33 “And the scribe said to Him, ‘Right, Teacher, You have truly stated that He is One; and there is no one else besides Him; and to love Him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as himself, is much more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices’” Clearly Jesus was getting thru to this man. Nothing wrong with sacrifices, God had commanded them, but offering mere sacrifices could never make up for failing to obey God in other areas or treating people right.

12:34 “And when Jesus saw that he had answered intelligently, He said to him, ‘You are not far from the kingdom of God’”: One is not far from the kingdom of God when one realizes that what Jesus teaches is true and right. This scribe restates what Jesus just stated and manifests true conviction in what Jesus taught. The fact that God is One and there is no one else besides Him is another foundation for loving Him with all our being. He was not far from the kingdom of God because he understood that all the external acts of obedience in the Law cannot make up for a failure to love God or your neighbor.

By saying, “not far” Jesus was inviting such people to come all the rest of the way.

Yet, being near the kingdom is not the same as being in the kingdom. A right understanding must translate into right action. “One must love enough to pay the price of entrance and go on in” (Fowler p. 264). Non-Christians can see what Jesus is teaching. This man was not yet saved, and yet he was not depraved either.

12

“Even Mark did not finish the story: did this prospective convert go on in earnest conversation to ask Jesus those questions that would have taken him all the way into the Kingdom? To know that does not matter. What are you going to do?” (Fowler p.

264). “Prejudice is the great obstacle to entering the kingdom. In proportion as we overcome it we draw near to God. They found it expedient to keep silence when their questions only exposed their own shallowness and made more conspicuous the supreme wisdom of Jesus” (McGarvey p. 604).

12:34 “And after that, no one would venture to ask Him any more questions”: Jesus had so quickly and convincingly answered all questions, even the hardest they opposition could find—and had in answering the questions made the opposition look very ignorant, that no one felt like trying to put Him on the spot again. Yet that does not mean that Jesus is done. He has a question of His own. We will look at this in our next study.

13