Verse by Verse

²⁸ Then one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, perceiving that He had answered them well, asked Him, “Which is the first commandment of all?”

²⁹ Jesus answered him, “The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.

³⁰ And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment.

³¹ And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

³² So the scribe said to Him, “Well said, Teacher. You have spoken the truth, for there is one God, and there is no other but He.

³³ And to love Him with all the heart, with all the understanding, with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself, is more than all the whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.”

³⁴ Now when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, He said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” But after that no one dared question Him.

Also found in Matthew 22:34-40.

scribe (v.28) — a professional interpreter of the Law

Which is the first commandment? (v.28) — The word “which is poia, “of what sort.” It is a question, not of an individual commandment, but of characteristic quality. The questioner … probably had in view the distinction between ritual and ethical, or positive and moral. The prevalent tendency was to attach special importance to the positive, and to find the greater matters of the law in circumcision, Sabbath-keeping, the rules respecting phylacteries, etc. The opposite tendency, to emphasize the ethical was not unrepresented, especially in the school of Hillel, which taught that the love of neighbor is the kernel of the law. The questioner leant to this side.  The Lord is not asked to select one commandment out of the Ten, but to specify a class of commandments, or a particular commandment as representative of a class, to which priority belongs. — Wuest, page 237.

__________

The quotation in verses 29 and 30 is from Deuteronomy 6:4-5. It was recited daily by every Jew, and written on the miniature roll which every scribe carried in his phylactery. This was a small case, made of parchment bound to the forehead or arm, in which was placed small pieces of parchment inscribed with scripture portions. … The mention of the heart, soul, mind, and strength speaks of the devotion of the whole being to God. The ancient Hebrews regarded the heart as the organ of the intellect, and the mind, that of the desires and affections. — Wuest, page 238.

love (v.30) — agape

the second commandment (v.31) — from Leviticus 19:18.

well said (v.32) — an exclamation of approval

There is a ring of conviction in the words [of the response of the questioner]. The varied expressions of the law of the love to God also bears witness to sincerity and independent thought. — Wuest, page 239.

__________

What the Lord observed in reference to the man was the intelligence displayed by his answer. it was shown not only in accepting the Lord’s judgment as to the two primary commandments, but in detecting and admitting the principle on which the judgment rested, namely, the superiority of moral over ritual obligation. Under the old theocracy those far off are either exiled Jews (Isaiah 57:19), or Gentiles (Ephesians 2:13); distance from the new Kingdom is measured neither by miles, nor by ceremonial standards, but by spiritual conditions. The man was to some extent intellectually qualified for admission to the Kingdom; certainly he grasped one of its fundamental principles. It would be interesting to work out a comparison between this scribe and the ruler of Mark 10:17. In both cases something was wanting to convert admiration into discipleship. If wealth was the bar in the one case, pride of intellect may have been fatal in the other. — Wuest, page 239.

__________

His enemies had been defeated and put to shame, their murderous hate had been denounced, and the nets of their cunning had been rent like cobwebs; they had seen the heart of one of their own order kindled into open admiration, and they henceforth renounced as hopeless the attempt to conquer Jesus in debate. No man after that durst ask Him any questions. He will now carry the war into their own country. It will be for them to answer Jesus. — Chadwick, page 340.

¹⁸ Then some Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Him; and they asked Him, saying:

¹⁹ “Teacher, Moses wrote to us that if a man’s brother dies, and leaves his wife behind, and leaves no children, his brother should take his wife and raise up offspring for his brother.

²⁰ Now there were seven brothers. The first took a wife; and dying, he left no offspring.

²¹ And the second took her, and he died; nor did he leave any offspring. And the third likewise.

²² So the seven had her and left no offspring. Last of all the woman died also.

²³ Therefore, in the resurrection, when they rise, whose wife will she be? For all seven had her as wife.”

²⁴ Jesus answered and said to them, “Are you not therefore mistaken, because you do not know the Scriptures nor the power of God?

²⁵ For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

²⁶ But concerning the dead, that they rise, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the burning bush passage, how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’?

²⁷ He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living. You are therefore greatly mistaken.”

Also found in Matthew 22:23-33 and Luke 20:27-40.

This is Mark’s only reference to the Sadducees, whom he introduces with a word of explanation. They were a priestly aristocracy, less numerous than the Pharisees and less popular Religiously they were the rationalists of the day, although conservative in their attitude to the Scriptures in the sense that they denied the validity of the oral tradition which the Pharisees held to be binding. They took their stand particularly upon the authority of the Pentateuch. They were therefore as obnoxious to the Pharisees on religious grounds as were the Herodians on political grounds. But the Pharisees were willing to work with either for the destruction of Jesus. It may be, however, that the Sadducees now hoped to succeed where their adversaries had failed.

Their question was less dangerous than the previous one, being a matter of exegesis and speculation rather than politics, doctrinal rather than ethical. — Guthrie, page 877.

The Sadducees did not believe in angels, spirits, or the resurrection. It wasn’t that they denied any particular resurrection, but that the possibility of any sort of resurrection from the dead did not exist. And even though their approach was more direct and not filled with fake praise, they were testing Jesus. They weren’t seeking knowledge.

Like the rationalist of every age, [the Sadducees] stood coldly aloof from popular movements, and we seldom find them interfering with Christ or His followers until their energies were roused by the preaching of His Resurrection, so directly opposed to their fundamental doctrines.

Their appearance now is extremely natural. The repulse of every other party left them the only champions of orthodoxy against the new movement, with everything to win by success, and little to lose by failure. There is a tone of quiet and confident irony in their interrogation, well befitting an upper-class group, a secluded party of refined critics, rather than practical teachers with a mission to their fellow-men. They break utterly new ground by raising an abstract and subtle question, a purely intellectual problem, but one which reduced the doctrine of a resurrection to an absurdity, if only their premise can be made good. … [The Lord’s answer] lays great and special stress upon the authority of Scripture, in this encounter with the party which least acknowledged it. — Chadwick, page 331.

Moses wrote (v.19) — Deuteronomy 25:5

The literal Greek [of v.24] is, “Because of this do you not err, not knowing the scriptures an the power of God?” The Greek negative ou when used with a question, expects an affirmative answer. This form of question is stronger than a formal direct statement would be. The words “because of this” point ahead to the cause of their ignorance which was two-fold, both inexcusable in members of the priesthood, which most of these men probably were, ignorance of the Old Testament and ignorance of the power of God. The Sadducees (and the Pharisees also, so far as they connected marriage and the propagation of the race with the future life). showed themselves incapable of conceiving a power which could produce an entirely different order from any within their experience. They assumed either that God could not raise the dead, or that He could raise them only to a life which would be a counterpart of the present, or even more replete with material pleasure. — Wuest, pages 235-236.

__________

like angels (v.25) — Angels were originally created. There are the same number of angels in existence today as when they were created. They do not propagate their kind. Human beings in the next life will not be angels, but human beings. They will be like angels in this respect, that they will not propagate their kind. Thus the hypothetical case of the Sadducees has no relation to the future life. — Wuest, page 236.

The quote in v.26 is from Exodus 3:6.

[Jesus’] argument … is based upon the immutability of God, and, therefore, the imperishability of all that ever entered into vital and real relationship with Him. To cancel such a relationship would introduce a change into the Eternal. And Moses, to whom they appealed, had heard God expressly proclaim Himself the God of those who had long since passed out of time. It was, therefore, clear that His relationship with them lived on, and this guaranteed that no portion, even the humblest, of their true personality should perish. Now the body is as real a part of humanity, as the soul and spirit are, although a much lowlier part. And, therefor, it must not really die. — Chadwick, pages 335-336.

¹³ Then they sent to Him some of the Pharisees and the Herodians, to catch Him in His words.

¹⁴ When they had come, they said to Him, “Teacher, we know that You are true, and care about no one; for You do not regard the person of men, but teach the way of God in truth. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not

¹⁵ Shall we pay, or shall we not pay?” But He, knowing their hypocrisy, said to them, “Why do you test Me? Bring Me a denarius that I may see it.”

¹⁶ So they brought it. And He said to them, “Whose image and inscription is this?” They said to Him, “Caesar’s.”

¹⁷ And Jesus answered and said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they marveled at Him.

Also found in Matthew 22:15-22 and Luke 20:20-26.

For the Pharisees and Herodians to unite in a common cause was quite unusual. The Pharisees were strongly resentful of the Roman occupation of Palestine—particularly of Judea where the poll-tax was required (Matthew 22:17; Mark 12:14). In contrast, the Herodians strongly supported the Roman presence in the land, because this was the source of power by which the Herod family ruled. In whatever way Jesus answered their question, they assumed He must violate the tenets of one of the two groups. He would be proven guilty in the eyes of either the people (Luke 20:26) if He disagreed with the Pharisees, or the governor (Luke 20:20) if He disagreed with the Herodians. — Thomas, page 187.

catch (v.13) = to hunt and catch like a wild animal. Matthew used the word for “entangle”— “to snare or trap” birds.

The preamble is skillfully arranged with the view of disarming suspicion, and at the same time preventing escape. So independent and fearless a teacher of truth could not from fear of consequences either refuse an answer to honest and perplexed inquiries, or conceal His real opinion. — Wuest, page 231.

know (v.14) = positive knowledge, absolutely conviction

true (v.14) — true in the sense that He could  not lie

lawful (v.14) — permissible, allowed, permitted (not really a question regarding civil or criminal law)

The Jews were not discussing the legality of paying poll tax to Caesar, but whether a Jew should do so in view of his theocratic relationship to God. They pressed for an answer, yes or no, as if there were no other possible answer. They hoped, in view of His Jewish background and teaching, that He would say no. That would involve Him at once with the Roman authorities. Such a reply, considering the present mood of the crowd, might put Him at the head of a rebellion (Acts 5:37) or at least would have made Him liable to a charge of treason (Luke 23:2). Had He given an affirmative answer, He would have incurred the displeasure of the Jewish crowds. — Wuest, page 232.

__________

taxes to Caesar (v.14) — the poll tax which the Jews paid to the Emperor. This payment was objectionable to them for two reasons, first, because it was a sign of subjection to foreign power, and second, because the coin with which it was to be paid, the denarius, bore the Emperor’s effigy stamped upon it. And this Emperor, it was Roman law to worship as a god. — Wuest, page 232.

knowing their hypocrisy (v.15) — Matthew 22:18 has “perceived their wickedness.” Luke 20;23 has “perceived their craftiness.”

Malice lay at the root of their conduct, unscrupulous cunning supplied them with means of seeking their end, whilst they sought to screen themselves under the pretense of a desire and admiration of fearless truthfulness. The Lord detected their true character intuitively. he knew it by experience, and He perceived it by tokens which did not escape His observation. — Wuest, page 233.

inscription (v.16) — the writing on the coin

The whole principle laid down turns on the change of working from pay (v.15) to render (v.17). For it was not a question of giving what might lawfully be refused but of paying what was lawfully claimed. The tribute was not a gift but a debt. Caesar gave them the inestimable benefit of stable government; were they to take it and decline to pay anything towards its maintenance? Duty to God and duty to the state are not incompatible; we owe a debt to both. The Pharisees admitted their debt to Caesar by using his coinage; this was why Jesus asked for the coin. If they could produce it, they had the answer to their own question. This answer … acquits [Christians] from the charge of disloyalty to the state. [See also Romans 13:1-7.] — Guthrie, pages 876-877.

The Jewish leaders had used the word for “to give.” The Lord replied with the word for paying a debt. There is no conflict between duties to God and duties to the state.

marveled (v.17) — tense indicates continuous action. His reply gave them no further room to maneuver.

1 Then He began to speak to them in parables: “A man planted a vineyard and set a hedge around it, dug a place for the wine vat and built a tower. And he leased it to vinedressers and went into a far country.

² Now at vintage-time he sent a servant to the vinedressers, that he might receive some of the fruit of the vineyard from the vinedressers.

³ And they took him and beat him and sent him away empty-handed.

⁴ Again he sent them another servant, and at him they threw stones, wounded him in the head, and sent him away shamefully treated.

⁵ And again he sent another, and him they killed; and many others, beating some and killing some.

⁶ Therefore still having one son, his beloved, he also sent him to them last, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’

⁷ But those vinedressers said among themselves, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’

⁸ So they took him and killed him and cast him out of the vineyard.

⁹ “Therefore what will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the vinedressers, and give the vineyard to others.

¹⁰ Have you not even read this Scripture: ‘The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone.

¹¹ This was the Lord’s doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes’?”

¹² And they sought to lay hands on Him, but feared the multitude, for they knew He had spoken the parable against them. So they left Him and went away.

Also found in Matthew 21:33-46 and Luke 20:9-19.

The chapter division here is unfortunate, since the parable arises out of the challenge of the chief priests. Its scope is remarkably comprehensive, covering the centuries of Israel’s past history, depicting the present situation of conflict, and pointing to its future issues. As a national symbol of Israel, the vineyard was familiar from the Old Testament (e.g. Isaiah 5:1-7) and would quickly be so understood. The hedge to give protection from wild animals, the pit for the wine press, a vessel or trough to gather the juice of the pressed grapes, and the tower, a wooden booth on a high platform for a watchman (all of them words represented in the LXX of Isaiah 5), are all necessary elements in the story exhibiting collectively the care bestowed by the landlord. — Guthrie, page 876.

__________

Our Lord was accusing the spiritual leaders of Israel of being the future murderers of the Messiah, and this in the presence of the crowd. His purpose was to expose the true character of the hostility of the Sanhedrin. The vineyard was a recognized symbol of Israel itself as the covenant people, and both the members of the Sanhedrin and the better-taught among the crowd, could not but understand the symbolism. The wine vat referred to the receptacle into which the wine ran after it had been pressed out of the grapes. The man who planted the vineyard is God, the vinedressers, the spiritual leaders of Israel. The hedge speaks of God’s protecting care over Israel and His blessings upon the Chosen People. — Wuest, page 228.

receive some of the fruit (v.2) — The payment of the lease was to be with wine.

servant (v.2) = bondslave

The servants sent by the vineyard owner are the Old Testament prophets sent to Israel.

They threw stones (v.4) — not in the best manuscripts, but the abuse heaped upon the second servant in the rest of the verse is.

The Greek text [of v.5] reads, “Yet he had one,” that is, one person to send, after all his bondslaves were either maltreated or killed. He reasons that the vineyard men would not dare to harm his son. … But to the owner any other result was inconceivable, and the parable sets forth the improbability from the human point of view, of such an issue as the incarnation actually had. All of which means that mankind does not have any proper conception of the utter and complete depravity of the fallen race, nor to what lengths it will go to hold on to its sin. In using the words “beloved son,” our Lord may have had in mind, the words of the Father at His baptism, “This is My Son, the beloved One, in whom I am well pleased” (Matthew 3:17). — Wuest, page 229.

__________

They really knew who [the Son, Jesus] was. They felt, at the very least, that into His hands should pass all the authority and power they had so long monopolized; “This is the Heir; come let us kill Him and the inheritance shall be ours.” — Chadwick, page 322.

__________

The “casting out” [v.8] speaks of the act of Israel’s leaders excommunicating our Lord. He was treated as excommunicate when He was condemned as a blasphemer and handed over to the Romans for punishment. Our Lord’s crucifixion outside of the walls of Jerusalem symbolized this expulsion from the community of Israel. — Wuest, page 230.

give the vineyard to others (v.9) — Of course, my commentaries all say that the “others” here are the Church, the Body of Christ. But that can’t be right because Paul clearly says that the Church was a mystery (Colossians 1:24-27) which God didn’t reveal until He revealed it to Paul. Therefore, Jesus did not refer to it in His ministry. So, the “others” can only be the “little flock” of Luke 12:32 — the kingdom saints, or Jews trusted Christ as the Messiah. See my notes on the Matthew passage.

The quotation [vs.10-11] is from Psalm 118:22-23. It is quoted again in Acts 4:11, and 1 Peter 2:4, 7. The stone is the Messiah, the builders, the spiritual leaders of Israel. The word “rejected” is apokokimazo. The simple verb means “to put to the test for the purpose of approving.” The prefixed preposition means “off, away from.” This tells us the story of Messiah’s rejection by Israel. Israel was looking for its Messiah. Jesus of Nazareth claimed to be Messiah. The leaders of Israel investigated His claims, found them to be true, substantiated by the miracles He performed (John 3:2), yet with all this evidence, rejected Him as Messiah because He did not meet their specifications. They were looking for a Messiah who would deliver Israel from the despotism of Rome, not from the dominion of sin. But this Messiah will some day become the King of Kings and Lord of Lords over the earth as the Head of the Millennial empire. — Wuest, page 230.

This was the second time (Mark 11:18) that the leaders wanted to arrest Jesus in the Temple but their fear of the people prevented them.

²⁷ Then they came again to Jerusalem. And as He was walking in the temple, the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders came to Him.

²⁸ And they said to Him, “By what authority are You doing these things? And who gave You this authority to do these things?”

²⁹ But Jesus answered and said to them, “I also will ask you one question; then answer Me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things:

³⁰ The baptism of John—was it from heaven or from men? Answer Me.”

³¹ And they reasoned among themselves, saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ He will say, ‘Why then did you not believe him?’

³² But if we say, ‘From men’ ”—they feared the people, for all counted John to have been a prophet indeed.

³³ So they answered and said to Jesus, “We do not know.” And Jesus answered and said to them, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things.”

Also found in Matthew 21:23-27 and Luke 20:1-8.

Representatives of three orders approached Him, the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders. The definite article is used in each case, which fact indicates that those who came, represented their own group. This united action was probably agreed upon during the night. Their questions were in themselves reasonable ones from their point of view. They were the custodians of the Temple. Our Lord, by forcibly ejecting those who were engaged in business in the Temple, was claiming a superior jurisdiction. — Wuest, pages 225-226.

__________

They sought to trap Him fatally. For Him to claim divine authority would, so they thought, amount to blasphemy; to claim authority as Son of David would be treason against Rome; to disclaim all authority would prove Him an imposter. — Guthrie, page 876.

__________

Our Lord … says that He has one question to ask them. The one question is not contrasted to the two questions asked Him, but points to the simplicity of the issue. The answer to our Lord’s one question should clear the air. He refers to John the Baptist. The latter had testified to the divine source of His mission. The question of the Sanhedrin resolved itself into a question as to the source of the Baptist’s teaching. In demanding an answer from them, our Lord was claiming an answer as from authorized teachers who were acquainted with the facts. — Wuest, page 226.

__________

John the Baptist had borne testimony to Jesus as the Messiah. If they acknowledged him to be a prophet with divine authority, the answer to their question was plain, and they would see that the authority of Jesus was derived from the same source. The ministry of John was one of high public importance upon which men in their position should be competent to pronounce. When therefore they pleaded ignorance on a matter of such magnitude they virtually abdicated from their office as teachers of the nation, and had no further right to question the authority of Jesus. Our Lord, therefore, did not reply to their question directly. Instead, He provided the complete answer in the parable that follows [Mark 12:1-9]. — Guthrie, page 876.

The leaders would not answer according to their own convictions. Their only consideration was how their answer would be received.

¹⁵ So they came to Jerusalem. Then Jesus went into the temple and began to drive out those who bought and sold in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves.

¹⁶ And He would not allow anyone to carry wares through the temple.

¹⁷ Then He taught, saying to them, “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations’? But you have made it a ‘den of thieves.’ ”

¹⁸ And the scribes and chief priests heard it and sought how they might destroy Him; for they feared Him, because all the people were astonished at His teaching.

¹⁹ When evening had come, He went out of the city.

Also found in Matthew 21:12-13 and Luke 19:45-48.

The state of things Jesus saw in the temple yesterday has been in His mind ever since: though the night watches in Bethany; in the morning, killing appetite; on the way, the key to His enigmatical behavior towards the fig tree. He began the day’s work by ejecting the traffickers, making no distinction between sellers and buyers. The market was within the precinct of the Temple, and had already attracted the attention of Jesus at the first Passover of His ministry (John 2:14). It was a recognized institution, under the protection of the chief priests, and known in Rabbinical writings. The sales were limited to the Temple requisites, victims for the sacrifices, and the wine, oil, salt, etc., used in the ritual. As to our Lord prohibiting any from carrying a vessel through the Temple, the explanation is as follows: Persons carrying goods or implements, used the Temple as a short-cut when going between the city and the Mount of Olives. This had been forbidden by the Jewish authorities at one time, but the order was not being enforced. The word “vessel” referred to an “implement, household utensil, domestic gear.” The Greek or Roman money which the Passover visitors from Gentile countries brought with them was changed into Jewish half-shekels, so that the Jew could pay his Temple-tax. A large profit was made in this way. To have their tables over turned and their money thrown all over the floor on the eve of the Passover, was to deal their business a serious blow at a time when the money traffic was at its height. — Wuest, pages 220-221.

The quote in v.17 is from Isaiah 56:7.

thieves (v.17) — should be “robbers.” … The robber, conducting his operations on a large and systematic scale, and with the aid of bands, is thus to be distinguished from the thief who purloins or pilfers whatever comes to hand. A den would be appropriate to a band of robbers, not thieves. — Wuest, page 222.

Jesus’ clearing of the Temple was the last straw for the Jewish authorities. From this point “they went to seeking” a way to do away with Him. But the crowds in the city for Passover were largely from Galilee and the Gentile countries. These people were fans of Jesus, at least on the surface, and were expecting Him to take the throne. Any attempt on His life could have caused a riot.

astonished (v.18) = struck out of one’s senses. Jesus’ teaching was very different from the teaching the people heard from the Jewish leaders.

When (v.19) = Whenever. The Lord left the city each of the first three evenings of the week.

¹² Now the next day, when they had come out from Bethany, He was hungry.

¹³ And seeing from afar a fig tree having leaves, He went to see if perhaps He would find something on it. When He came to it, He found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs.

¹⁴ In response Jesus said to it, “Let no one eat fruit from you ever again.” And His disciples heard it.

__________

²⁰ Now in the morning, as they passed by, they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots.

²¹ And Peter, remembering, said to Him, “Rabbi, look! The fig tree which You cursed has withered away.”

²² So Jesus answered and said to them, “Have faith in God.

²³ For assuredly, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, ‘Be removed and be cast into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that those things he says will be done, he will have whatever he says.

²⁴ Therefore I say to you, whatever things you ask when you pray, believe that you receive them, and you will have them.

²⁵ “And whenever you stand praying, if you have anything against anyone, forgive him, that your Father in heaven may also forgive you your trespasses.

²⁶ But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father in heaven forgive your trespasses.”

Also found in Matthew 21:18-22.

the next day (v.12) — Monday

not the season for figs (v.13) — I found several different interpretations.

According to Williams, it means that the fig harvest hadn’t begun so there should have been fruit.

According to Guthrie (pg. 875), “The fig tree in Palestine bears an early crop of immature fruit, like green knobs, which appears before the leaves. These are known as Taksh and are the common food of the peasants. Their absence was clear indication of the barrenness of the tree.”

According to Thomas (pg. 179), “Jesus knew that Passover time was not the season for figs, but He used His own hunger and this leafy fig tree as an object lesson for the disciples. In the Old Testament the fig tree is often a symbol for Israel (Jeremiah 8:13; 29:17; Hosea 9:10, 16; Joel 1:7; Micah 7:1-6). Such is the case here. The ritualism of national worship was hiding the absence of genuine piety among the people. Hence Jesus’ cure of this fig tree was emblematic of God’s judgment that was going to fall on Jerusalem.”

According to Chadwick (pg. 304), “It is that figs would not be in season for two months, but yet they ought to present themselves before the leaves did; and since the tree was precocious in show and profusion of luxuriance, it ought to bear early figs. … Retribution fell upon it not for its lack of fruit, since at that season it shared this with all its tribe, but for ostentatious, much-professing fruitlessness.”

According to Wuest (pg.220), “The tree was prematurely in leaf, growing in some sheltered spot, and it was reasonable to expect a premature crop of figs. The Lord condemned the tree, not only because of its fruitlessness, but because of its fruitlessness in the midst of a display which promised fruit.”

in the morning (v.20) — Tuesday

dried up (v.20) = withered away, dead

Our Lord’s answer to Peter, on the surface so unrelated to Peter’s words [can be explained as] the lesson to be learnt from the prompt fulfillment of His prayer. … Our Lord exercised faith in the cursing of the fig tree. He presses home the lesson of the necessity of faith to the disciples. The word “God” is in the genitive case, showing here the object of faith … “be constantly having faith in God.” — Wuest, page 224

__________

this mountain (v.23) — The Twelve were crossing the Mount of Olives; below them, between the mountains of Judaea and the mountains of Moab, lay the hollow of the Dead Sea. Faith, cooperating with the Divine Will, could fill the basin with the mass of limestone beneath their feet … Faith is regarded as the normal attitude of the heart, not a sudden emotion or isolated act. Faith contemplates the effect as potentially accompanying its exercise, though the actual fulfillment may be delayed. — Wuest, page 224.

doubt (v.23) = lit. “to judge between two,” so, a divided judgment, a wavering doubt

whatever he says (v.23) — not in some manuscripts.

[Verse 24 speaks of] the kind of faith that sees the fulfillment before it happens. “Faith is the title deed of things hoped for (Hebrews 11:1).” Just as a title deed guarantees to the one whose name appear son it, the ownership of the property, even though he may not have it in his actual possession, so faith is the title deed that guarantees to the one exercising it, the answer to his prayer, even though that answer may be delayed, and the thing asked for not in his possession. — Wuest, page 225.

stand praying (v.25) — a common practice among Jews

trespasses (v.25) = a fall from the right course, a false step

Verse 26 does not appear in most manuscripts, although I wonder if this is simply due to an effort to reconcile the dispensations of Law and Grace.

⁸ And many spread their clothes on the road, and others cut down leafy branches from the trees and spread them on the road.

⁹ Then those who went before and those who followed cried out, saying: “Hosanna! ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’

¹⁰ Blessed is the kingdom of our father David that comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest!”

¹¹ And Jesus went into Jerusalem and into the temple. So when He had looked around at all things, as the hour was already late, He went out to Bethany with the twelve.

Also found in Matthew 21:8-17, Luke 19:36-38, and John 12:12-19.

Matthew, Mark,and John each use a different word for “branches.” Matthew speaks of a young slip or shoot, a twig; Mark, of a mass of straw, rushes, or leaves beaten together or strewed loose, so as to form a bed or carpeted way; and John, of palm-branches, the feathery fronds forming the tufted crown of the tree. Each group contributed its own road-decorations. … The deliberate conduct of Jesus here could have but one meaning, namely, that this was His formal presentation of Himself as the Messiah. The crowds realizes this and entered into the spirit of the occasion. The people, however, expected the Lord to set up His rule in opposition to that of Rome, and deliver the Jews from the yoke of their oppressors. — Wuest, page 218.

those who went before (v.9) — probably the crowds that came out from Jerusalem to meet Jesus

those who followed (v.9) — probably the crowds that followed Him from Bethphage and Bethany where He had spent the previous night. The two groups met, merged, and moved together back toward the city.

The quote in vs. 9-10 is from Psalm 118:25-26.

Hosanna (vs.9-10) = “save now,” “grant salvation”

blessed (v.9-10) = speak well of, praise, eulogize

temple (v.11) — the temple with its porches, courts, and outbuildings, not the inner part where the Holy Place and Holy of Holies were.

looked around (v.11) — likely for the purpose of judging, assessing the situation

What concerned Mark was that now, at last, Jesus openly and practically assumed rank as a monarch, allowed men to proclaim the advent of His kingdom, and proceeded to exercise its rights by calling for the surrender of property, and by cleansing the temple with a scourge. … After this heroic fashion did Jesus present Himself to die. Without a misleading hope, conscious of the hollowness of His seeming popularity, weeping for the impending ruin of the glorious city whose walls were ringing with His praise, and predicting the murderous triumph of the crafty faction which appears so helpless, He not only refuses to recede or compromise, but does not hesitate to advance His claims in a manner entirely new, and to defy the utmost animosity of those who still rejected Him.

After such a scene there could be no middle course between crushing Him, and bowing to Him. He was no longer a Teacher of doctrines, however revolutionary, but an Aspirant to practical authority, Who must be dealt with practically. — Chadwick, page 302.

1 Now when they drew near Jerusalem, to Bethphage and Bethany, at the Mount of Olives, He sent two of His disciples;

² and He said to them, “Go into the village opposite you; and as soon as you have entered it you will find a colt tied, on which no one has sat. Loose it and bring it.

³ And if anyone says to you, ‘Why are you doing this?’ say, ‘The Lord has need of it,’ and immediately he will send it here.”

⁴ So they went their way, and found the colt tied by the door outside on the street, and they loosed it.

⁵ But some of those who stood there said to them, “What are you doing, loosing the colt?”

⁶ And they spoke to them just as Jesus had commanded. So they let them go.

⁷ Then they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their clothes on it, and He sat on it.

Also found in Matthew 21:1-7 and Luke 19:29-35.

Matthew tells about two animals, a donkey and a colt, while the other writers mention only the colt. … Matthew adds this detail to tie the event more closely with Zechariah 9:9 which mentions two animals. Jesus apparently rode on the colt only. … The mother of the colt was probably led in front to make the cold more at ease in carrying its first rider. — Thomas, page 176.

__________

Bethphage and Bethany were villages just on the opposite side of the Mount of Olives from Jerusalem. Bethphage was larger and better known, but Bethany was where the colt was.

sent (v.1) = sent on a commission to do something

on which no one has sat (v.2) — relates to a custom from the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 21:3; 1 Samuel 6:7), which specifies that animals to be used for certain religious rites must not have previously been ridden, burdened, or harnessed for labor. — KJBC, page 1252.

__________

His choice of an animal not ridden by anyone before Him, is another of those claims to uniqueness which contrast forcibly with His usual condescension to the circumstances of an ordinary human life. — Wuest, page 216.

__________

The disciples found the colt exactly as the Lord had said. For other examples of this supernatural knowledge of circumstances compare Mark 14:13, Matthew 17:27, John 1:48. The cold was outside the house and fastened to the door. The better class of houses were built about an open court, from which a passageway under the house led to the street outside. It was at this outside opening to the street that the colt was tied. — Wuest, page 217.

Some commentaries believe that the Lord supernaturally knew of the colt and supernaturally inclined the owners to surrender it. Others believe that Jesus had prearranged that the colt be available. Wuest has a third view, one which makes sense to me.

Those that stood by were idlers; Luke says they were the owners; they had tied up the animals while they took part in the street gossip. The fact that they were satisfied with the answer of the disciples, is explained by the consideration that the Lord was well-known in the neighborhood (John 11). They knew that this Prophet could be trusted, and its owners did not need the colt just at that time. They probably were proud of the fact that it would be used by Him. — Wuest, page 217.

Also, according to Luke 22:8, Peter was one of the disciples. He was often the spokesman for the disciples, and would most likely also have been well known in the area as an associate to the Lord.

Unless they were challenged they should simply bring the animals away; but if anyone remonstrated, they should answer, “The Lord hath need to them,” and thereupon the owner would not only acquiesce, but send them. In fact they are to make a requisition, such as the State often institutes for horses and cattle during a campaign, when private rights must give way to a national exigency. And this masterful demand, this abrupt and decisive rejoinder to a natural objection , not arguing nor requesting, but demanding, this title which they are bidden to give to Jesus, by which standing thus alone, He is rarely described in Scripture (chiefly in the later Epistles, when the remembrance of His earthly style gave place to the influence of habitual adoration), all this preliminary arrangement makes us conscious of a change of tone, of royalty issuing its mandates, and claiming its rights. But what a claim, what a requisition, when He takes the title of Jehovah, and yet announces His need of the colt of an ass. It is indeed the lowliest of all memorable processions which He plans, and yeet, in its very humility, it appeals to ancient prophecy, and says unto Zion that her King cometh unto her. The monarchs of the East and the captains of the West might ride upon horses as for war, but the King of Sion should come unto her meed, and sitting upon and ass, upon a colt, the foal of an ass. Yet there is fitness and dignity in the use of “a cold whereon never man sat,” and it reminds us of other facts, such as that He was the firstborn of a virgin mother, and rested in a tomb which corruption had never soiled. — Chadwick, page 200.

__________

The Messianic significance of this event [riding the colt and entering Jerusalem, which followed] is clear … It represented, first, a fulfillment of Zechariah 9:9; secondly, an open and deliberate assertion of Messiahship: the hour was approaching when He would be rejected and the issue must now be made plain. Either He is King, or He … must be rejected as Messiah-King. It seems doubtful, however, whether this was understood either by the disciples or by the crowd at the time. … Furthermore John tells us (John 12:16) that at first the disciples did not understand, but realized the significance of these vents only after the resurrection. The manner of His entry expressed the character of His Messiahship, for here was in fact no military conqueror upon a war-horse, or political revolutionary of the kind the Jews expected. — Guthrie, page 874.

⁴⁶ Now they came to Jericho. As He went out of Jericho with His disciples and a great multitude, blind Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus, sat by the road begging.

⁴⁷ And when he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to cry out and say, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!”

⁴⁸ Then many warned him to be quiet; but he cried out all the more, “Son of David, have mercy on me!”

⁴⁹ So Jesus stood still and commanded him to be called. Then they called the blind man, saying to him, “Be of good cheer. Rise, He is calling you.”

⁵⁰ And throwing aside his garment, he rose and came to Jesus.

⁵¹ So Jesus answered and said to him, “What do you want Me to do for you?” The blind man said to Him, “Rabboni, that I may receive my sight.”

⁵² Then Jesus said to him, “Go your way; your faith has made you well.” And immediately he received his sight and followed Jesus on the road.

Also found in Matthew 20:29-34 and Luke 18:35-43.

As in an earlier case, Matthew describes two victims while Mark and Luke write about only one. The second and third gospels single out the more vocal of the pair. The miracle was apparently performed as Jesus left the city though He first [passed] the men when He approached the city (Luke 18:35). — Thomas, page 170.

One of my commentaries pointed out that Matthew was an eyewitness to this healing and so remembered the second man. Mark and Luke were not eyewitnesses, and so only related (and were perhaps only told of) the man who cried out. That makes sense to me. Others suggest that one man was healed as Jesus entered the city and another as He left. That doesn’t seem likely. A third theory suggests that the men were begging along the road as Jesus entered the city but didn’t cry out until He passed on the way out. That also strikes me as a possible explanation.

Bartimaeus calls Jesus “Son of David” because Jesus was now on Judaean soil. At Jerusalem all the Jews thought of David as their father, and of Messiah as the Son of David in a special sense. The Greek construction indicates that Bartimaeus kept on crying out to Jesus. The imperative is aorist, speaking of the fact that Bartimaeus asked the Jesus heal him at once. — Wuest, page 213.

warned (v.48) = rebuked, censured severely

called (v.49) = calling out loud in an audible voice that can be heard at a distance

rose (v.50) = leapt up, sprang up

garment (v.50) = large, upper garment common in the middle east, so large that a man would sometimes sleep in it.

Rabboni (v.51) = my Master, a term of reverent respect

receive (v.51) = recover. The blind man had probably been able to see at one time. Injuries to the eyes, caused by flying ash, were common the area, affecting as much as 50% of the men.

made you well (v.52) — The word is used either of physical healing or of spiritual salvation. The perfect tense speaks of a permanent cure.

After he was healed, Bartimaeus joined the crowd.