Category: Uncategorized

These notes accompany and supplement my podcast on the same passage.

This parable is normally seen as a discussion of God’s relationship with the nation of Israel. Doubtless in the original context, with Jesus talking to Jews about how they had rejected prophets, and now were rejecting him, this was the meaning. Having noticed that, however, in my podcast on the passage I intend to focus on how this parable can apply to us in principle today. Here I’ll provide cross-references and a few historical notes. UBSIV lists no significant textual variants for this pericope.

Parallel passages are Matthew 21:33-46 and Luke 20:9-19.

This passage finds parts of its background in Isaiah 5:1-7, Isaiah 27:1-6, and perhaps Jeremiah 12:10-13.

Translation and Notes

¹He began to speak to them in parables. “A man planted a vineyard, put a wall around it, dug a winepress in it, and built a tower. He rented it out to tenants and left on a journey.

Parables are often built around common situations that the audience would comprehend. A person who sets up a vineyard and then leases it out to others, expecting appropriate payment, was quite a comprehensible situation. In addition, the use of the vineyard in imagery by Isaiah, especially, would help tie this parable to Israel.

Note the big difference between Isaiah’s parable and this one. In this case the rebuke is addressed to the leaders, to those who are supposed to tend to the vineyard. In Isaiah, the entire vineyard is addressed. It is supposed to bring forth fruit and does not. Jesus is carefully addressing a problem that is specific to the leadership of the time, and particularly the temple leadership.

²And he sent a servant to his tenants at the appropriate time to receive the fruit from his vineyard. ³But they took him, beat him, and sent him away empty handed. ⁴And again he sent another servant to them. They beat this one on the head this one and insulted him. ⁵He sent another one, and the killed that one. Then he sent many others. Some the beat, some they killed.

One of the principles for interpreting a parable is that we don’t try to get too much meaning out of the details. A parable tends to drive home a particular point, and details are often there merely to fill out the narrative. An allegory, on the other hand, attempts to match symbol to specific reality at all points. The fact is that there is more of a continuum between a parable and an allegory. In this case, we are dealing primarily with a parable, but it has some features of an allegory, with the various servants representing prophets, and of course the son representing Jesus himself. Thus Matthew puts in additional detail by having some servants stoned.

The key message here is that there was an expectation of result from the planting of this vineyard, and that the appropriate return is refused to the owner.

⁶He still had one other person he could send–a beloved son. He finally sent him to them, saying, ‘They will honor my son!’ ⁷But those tenants said to one another, ‘This is the heir! Let’s kill him, and the inheritance will be ours!’

It’s an odd sort of logic that is going on here. Did the tenants really expect to get by with this type of behavior? Did they hope, perhaps that the owner would decide this wasn’t worth the effort and risk, and never return? Speculation on that might go beyond the purpose of the parable, but I do think Jesus is placing an emphasis on the perverse nature of the behavior of the servants. They had every reason to hand over the fruit. It was their duty to do so, yet they determined not to, no matter what happened.

⁸So they took him and killed him and threw him outside the vineyard. ⁹What then will the owner of that vineyard do? He will go and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others.

The punishment is severe, but in proportion to the offense. I would point out that while the parable in its original intent clearly applies to the Israelite leaders, it is specifically to the leaders that it does apply. There is no notion here that God is throwing out Israel. Rather, the corrupt temple leadership which is not fulfilling God’s mandate for his people is to be eliminated, and the vineyard will be otherwise cared for.

¹⁰Have you never read this scripture:

The stone that the builders rejected
is the very one that has become the cornerstone?
¹¹This comes from the Lord
And it looks marvelous to us!”

This passage and quotation (Psalm 118:22-23) emphasize the topic of the rejection of Jesus. Jesus certainly does see himself here as a man with a mission from God, and he also sees rejection of his mission as a grave hazard to the nations. By missing his agenda, the leaders are flirting with disaster.

With the hindsight of history, we can say that rejecting the peaceful way that Jesus espoused certainly did lead to disaster, as Judea and Galilee attempted twice in only a little more than a century to throw off the Roman yoke. Their efforts were paid for in blood. It is common to think of those revolutionaries as the true patriots. But they might have done well to try a different approach.

¹²And they sought to seize him, but they were afraid of the crowd, for they knew that the parable was spoken against them. They left him and went away. — Mark 12:1-12

Mar 12:12 – They feared the multitude – How wonderful is the providence of God, using all things for the good of his children! Generally the multitude is restrained from tearing them in pieces only by the fear of their rulers. And here the rulers themselves are restrained, through fear of the multitude! — John Wesley

These notes are intended to accompany my podcast A Question of Authority.

Interpretations of this passage tend to focus on the conflict and how Jesus got out of it. He did, indeed, avoid a difficult situation in a very creative way. But there is an additional realm of discussion. Jesus suggested an entirely different way to think of authority.

Working Translation and Notes

²⁷They entered Jerusalem again and while he was walking in the temple, the chief priests, scribes and elders came to him ²⁸and said to him, “By what authority do you do these things? Or who gave you the authority to do these things?”

These leaders quite naturally expect (or would require) an ordination or sending by an existing authority; Jesus is claiming to be an authority by authorization of God. Notice that questioning the authority of the temple hierarchy, which Jesus had done by casting out the money changers, was not an uncommon thing amongst Jews in the first century. This questioning would have been something Jesus had in common with the Pharisees, for example. Where he would differ with all of them would be in the solution.

²⁹But Jesus said to them, “I will ask you one thing, and if you answer me, I will tell you by what authority I’m doing these things. ³⁰John’s baptism–was it from heaven, or from human sources? Answer me!”

Besides the problem they think of (next verse), there is a simple problem here. If they answered this question they would imply something about how they thought authority could be verified. Their own authority rested partially on the Roman government, which had gotten involved in appointing the high priests, so there were any number of problems for them in this situation.

³¹And they debated amongst themselves, saying, “If we say ‘From heaven’ he will say ‘then why didn’t you believe him?’ ³²But if we say, ‘from human sources’”–they feared the crowd, because all held that John was a prophet.

The crowd is neither an unmixed curse, nor an unmixed blessing. A crowd can often be led too easily. In fact, this precise question—the question of the source of authority—is very relevant to that particular issue. In his answer Jesus also suggested to the crowd something to consider. Why did they follow John the Baptist? Was it because of someone else’s authority, or because they recognized God speaking through him?

³³So they answered Jesus, “We don’t know.” And Jesus said to them, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things.” — Mark 11:27-33

But in a sense Jesus did answer their question by implying the possibilities. John the Baptist did not have an ordination or a warrant from accepted leadership. He proclaimed God’s message and people listened. Jesus could have mentioned at this point that John had endorsed his ministry, but what would have been the point? Jesus did not derive his authority from things that John the Baptist said about him, but from his heavenly father.

Jesus had a way of not answering a question that frustrated those who were not honest seekers, and yet went well beyond an answer for those who were truly seeking.

These notes accompany the Bible Pacesetter Podcast Having Godly Faith.

²⁰And as they were going by in the early morning they saw the fig tree, withered from the root. ²¹And Peter remembered and said to Jesus, “Rabbi look! The fig tree you cursed is withered!”

Unlike the story in Matthew, the withered fig tree is only seen the next day. In Matthew 21:20 there is even an emphasize on the speed with which the curse has its effect. This helps place the emphasis here in Mark on the fruitlessness of the tree, which helps tie it contextually with the cleansing of the temple. Together, the two events tend to say, “Look, guys, your agendas aren’t getting anywhere!”

²²Jesus answered them, “Have faith in God.

Literally, have faith of God. I would suggest “God’s faith” as a good translation. There is more implied here than simply believing enough.

The cursing of the fig tree dealt with the need to bear fruit. Now that they find the fig tree dead, Jesus turns to teaching them about faith and power.

On the destruction of the fig tree, John Wesley notes:

Mar 11:22 – Have faith in God – And who could find fault, if the Creator and Proprietor of all things were to destroy, by a single word of his mouth, a thousand of his inanimate creatures, were it only to imprint this important lesson more deeply on one immortal spirit? — John Wesley

The Interpreter’s Bible notes that the current context is not adequate for this saying. I certainly think many have creating a false understanding of this saying by taking it in this context without consideration of other statements on prayer. The exposition suggests that the one and only adequate context for the saying is the entire life and mission of Jesus. The faith of Jesus was confidence, trust, and obedience (see IB Exposition on Mark 11:22).

²³Truly I tell you that whoever says to this mountain, ‘Be raised up and thrown into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says will come to pass, it will happen for him. ²⁴For this reason I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you received it, and it will happen for you.

This is the key proof-text for those who teach that we can, in effect, make God do what we want. It has also provided the excuse for non-Christians to challenge believers to demonstrate that the Bible is true by claiming this promise and moving a mountain or so. Praying, and then having someone donate a few bulldozers, which then make removal of the mountain possible, doesn’t seem to be satisfactory.

But this is one reason why proof texts are so dangerous. We might first consider just how desirable it would be for mountains to be moved around on a whim. Second, every scriptural passage needs to find its context in the entire story of salvation as told by the Bible. In this case we need look only a little bit ahead. These same disciples who were being told about removing mountains by faith were to witness Jesus going to the cross and dying, and they would find themselves unable to do anything about it.

Nonetheless, they would record this saying of Jesus. Why would they do that? It’s quite possible that they understood this spiritually and didn’t see it as any kind of a failure at all; in fact, I’m quite sure that’s how they saw it. In spiritual application, Jesus would ask to be relieved of his task (Mark 14:35-36), fully expressing his faith that all things are possible to God, and yet he had to continue to the cross. It is clear that this power does not have to do with our removing inconveniences on a whim.

But there is a spiritual application here as well. On the cross Jesus did indeed move a mountain—the mountain of sin that was separating us from God, thus offering a way directly to the Father through his grace. I have had many people react with annoyance at such “spiritualizations” of passages like this one, but I believe that the evidence is quite good that this passage is intended primarily as a spiritual lesson in the first place.

Two other passages should be placed alongside this one: John 15:7 and James 4:3. Both make it clear that God’s power offered through faith has a condition—they must be understood in the context of God’s will and not our desires.

²⁵And whenever you stand and pray, if you have something against anyone, forgive them, so that your father who is in heave may forgive your transgressions.”

The introduction of forgiveness at this point in the discussion is very interesting. We tend to view the physical miracles as the most difficult, but Jesus emphasized spiritual things, like forgiveness of sins. This saying parallels Matthew 6:14-15 reasonably well.

This introduces a condition into the prayer. If we forgive, then God forgives. There’s many ways to argue around this, but I believe at a minimum we must realize that an unforgiving spirit will make it difficult to accept forgiveness as well.

²⁶{But if you do not forgive, neither will your father in heaven forgive your transgressions.}

Verse 26 is not included in the best manuscripts It is probably added by a scribe by analogy with Matthew 6:15.

The following working translation and notes accompany my podcast Cleansing the Temple.

¹⁵Then they went into Jerusalem, and after they entered the temple he began to throw out those who were selling and buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and up-ended those of the dove sellers.

The problem with the money changers was not a matter of economic exploitation, despite popular readings of this scene that paint the issue this way. [Barclay so reads it.–HN] Rather, Jesus’ action in the temple was fundamentally a prophetic one to point the nation in a fresh direction and announce the arrival of a key figure in God’s program. (Bock, p. 319)

Bock certainly has a good point here. There has been a great deal said about this incident in the ministry of Jesus. Much of the time we apply it according to our current situation. But Jesus was probably here continuing to focus on his agenda for Israel as opposed to the plans that others had. Early in my series on the Bible Pacesetter Radio Program and then podcast, I referred to N. T. Wright’s rendering of the phrase “repent and believe the gospel” as “drop your agendas, and trust me for mine.”

Jesus had many debates with the Pharisees, and these debates can often be read in terms of this difference of agenda. I’ll be adding Marcus Borg’s book Conflict, Holiness, and Politics in the Teachings of Jesus to those I have consulted in preparation for various of these messages. Borg and Wright often disagree, though they do it very agreeably, but on this point they are in general agreement. Jesus had an agenda of compassion for people; the Pharisees at the time had a focus on holiness attained through separation. Typically we think of the Sadducees as interested in the temple, and the Pharisees primarily interesting in Torah. But that impression is false. The Pharisees were very interested in the temple as the center of the Jewish nation, and the focus of their drive for holiness. They felt that the
Sadducees and the high priestly families were not practicing such holiness as they should.

Jesus cut across both camps by kicking the people out and putting his focus on prayer and the worship; worship was about the people, not so much the place.

¹⁶He wouldn’t let anyone carry any container through the temple, ¹⁷and he taught them and said,

Has it not been written:
My father’s house will be called a house of prayer for all nations,
But you have made it a den of thieves.

Can the process of worship get in the way of actual worshipers worshiping? I would suggest that it can be so. In the modern church we need to watch out for things that we do that tend to bring worship to a halt in order to so “stuff.” It doesn’t matter so much what it is that we do. If it distracts from people worshiping God then it’s not the right thing.

The temple money changers were needed in order to carry out worship by the laws of the Torah. Jesus acted out the new way, the direct way, for all nations to come to him.

¹⁸And the senior priests and the scribes heard it, and they began to search for a way to kill him. For they were afraid of the people, since the crowd was amazed at his teaching.

Fear is not the noblest motive to rely on in the fight against evil; but it is a legitimate motive, and sometimes very efficacious. The power of public opinion is too often discounted. One hope for a better world, rid at least in some measure of the great blights which rest on humanity, is the growth of a public opinion strong enough to say to the forces making for oppression, poverty, and war, “Let my people go.” We can always help to create a situation like that in Jerusalem, where the chief priests “feared him” because a multitude took him seriously. So have all great social advances been made, by changes in the intellectual and spiritual climate. As has been well observed, no one killed the diplodocus and other mammoth beasts which used to trample the earth. The climate changed and they died. This is a task where the impact of every life counts. — IB Exposition on Mark 11:18

We don’t know how much we can accomplish just by speaking up. Too frequently we think we are unimportant, individuals with limited time and audience. But every person who takes action is just one person, and if every “just one person” decides not to act because he or she is not important enough, then nobody acts.

We often focus on the crowd of people who called for the death of Jesus. It has been used by many who blame “the Jews” for the death of Jesus without asking who and how many. But here we find that there is a crowd, also of Jews, who prevent these leaders from acting. We do not know the numbers. There were no polls taken. But what is to say that this crowd was not substantially larger than the one that would later call for death? We certainly have plenty of modern examples of arranged demonstrations.

¹⁹And when it was evening, they went out of the city.

Jesus apparently stayed outside the city and only went inside for his work. The entire area would have been crowded as the feast approached.

Translation and Notes

¹²The next day, as he was coming from Bethany, he was hungry. ¹³And when he saw a fig tree from far away that had leaves he thought he might find something on it, but when he got there he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs.

Mar 11:13 – For it was not a season of figs – It was net (as we say) a good year for figs; at least not for that early sort, which alone was ripe so soon in the spring. If we render the words, It was not the season of figs, that is, the time of gathering them in, it may mean, The season was not yet: and so (inclosing the words in a parenthesis, And coming to it, he found nothing but leaves) it may refer to the former part of the sentence, and may be considered as the reason of Christ’s going to see whether there were any figs on this tree. Some who also read that clause in a parenthesis, translate the hollowing words, for where he was, it was the season of figs. And it is certain, this meaning of the words suits best with the great design of the parable, which was to reprove the Jewish Church for its unfruitfulness at that very season, when fruit might best be expected from them. — John Wesley

I have to disagree with John Wesley on this. I think that the matter of in season or out of season was a difference between the illustration and its application. That is Jesus was using the show (leaves) versus the fact (fruitlessness) as a parable, and the season was not the issue. “Because it was not the season for figs” is an explanatory note by the gospel writer rather than an essential part of the parable.

¹⁴And in response he said to it, “May nobody ever eat fruit from you again!” And his disciples heard it. — Mark 11:12-14

The momentary condition became permanent. I wonder if it is possible that Jesus simply recognized that this tree was never going to produce and pronounced on it what he knew was already the case?

These notes are a supplement to my podcast Cursing the Fig Tree – an Acted Parable.

These notes are provided to support and expand on my podcast Triumphantly Toward Death.

Translation and Notes

At a time when Jesus appears most like what the crowd expects he is actually heading into that portion of his ministry in which he will disappoint those same crowds the most. One of the key contrasts of the book of Mark is the crowd here in Mark 11:1-11 as opposed to the crowd in Mark 15:6-15. We should be very, very careful not to judge these crowds. We are often so much the same. God is great while his plans coincide with ours, but just let him ask us to push outside our comfort zone, and things change. We may not decide to crucify him, but we do tend to become disobedient. When we take that first step of disobedience, even that moment at which we believe we can judge God’s will and plan, we open the door that leads to the cry of “Crucify him.”

His right to kingship is also validated by the long line of people running down through the centuries, people who have taken him as Master and Savior, and whose lives in power and ministering love have been direct and fundamental proofs of the Christian religion. It has been given, too, an overwhelming demonstration in the social and political world. Every year piles up new mountains of evidence that Jesus was everlastingly right in his reading of life. The most effective arguments for the truth of Christianity are not being spun out of the brains of theologians, but by the events of contemporary history. The passing parade brings daily testimony to the truth that other foundation can no man lay for lasting security, economic welfare, and peace than that which is laid in Christ Jesus.

We have been given for generations the conventional picture of him as a gentle, mildly deluded sentimentalist, a figure for poetry and art, but unfitted to deal with the rouge realities of the world. That picture is steadily changing for anyone not deaf, dumb, and blind. Jesus is emerging as the sternest realist who ever injected hard truth into a world ruled by illusion. He is not the sentimentalist in the world we know. The sentimentalists are the romantic fools who imagine that it is possible to build security and peace on a foundation of hate and revenge, or of greed and competing sovereignties. Clemenceau, after the Versailles Peace Conference in 1919, directed a scornful sneer at Woodrow Wilson. He said that the president of the United States “spoke like Jesus Christ.” One keen-minded man exclaimed, “Ah, if only he had!” If anyone there, or at Yalta, or anywhere else, had spoken like Jesus Christ and carried conviction, our world might not have fallen into such ruin. The only one who could bring now a saving word to that world would be one who would speak like Jesus Christ. We can still cry to him with the old shout, “Hosanna!” IB on Mark 11:1-11

¹When he came near Jerusalem, to Bethphage and Bethany, near the Mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples,

I regard the efforts to straighten out the geography as pointless. The IB, for example, complains that the place names are out of order for someone traveling from Jericho to Jerusalem. What is missing, of course, is any indication that Mark intended to present them in order.

²and told them, “Go into the village that is across from you, and as soon as you go into it, you will find a donkey tied up, on whom no human has sat. Untie it and bring it. ³And if anyone says to you, ‘Why are you doing this?’ say, ‘The master needs it, and he will send it back here immediately.’”

This passage has created some truly bizarre claims, including the accusation that Jesus was a horse thief. Most commonly, however, people make reference to the supernatural. But there is no requirement for Jesus to have supernatural knowledge in order to know about the donkey. He may well have made arrangements either through another messenger or on his own. Perhaps he knew the owner and his habits. Of course it would be quite possible for Jesus to know supernaturally where the donkey actually was, but how would he arrange for the docile crowd who question, but then allow the disciples to take the donkey away?

The most natural reading is to assume some sort of prior arrangement or even a standing friendship with the owner. Bock (p. 313) suggests the practice of “angaria, the temporary procurement of resources on behalf of a leader, either ruler or rabbi.” That is also possible, but it would presumably only work with an existing disciple.

⁴And they went and found the donkey tied up by the gate outside on the street, and they untied it. ⁵And certain persons who were standing there asked them, “What are you doing untying the donkey?” ⁶But they said to them just what Jesus had told them, and so they left them alone.

Mark makes it clear that Jesus is in control of the situation and is going voluntarily to what he is about to experience.

⁷And they brought the donkey to Jesus, and they threw their garments on it, and he sat on it.

The disciples were certainly bright enough to understand the purpose of the donkey. Once Jesus is seated, the crowds will understand as well—to the extent that their agenda allows them to.

⁸And many spread out their garments on the path, but others broke off leafy branches out of the fields. ⁹And they went before him and followed him, saying,

Hosanna
Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord.
¹⁰Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David,
Hosanna in the highest!

Beware the crowds! I wrote some comments on this in a devotional this morning, which can serve as my comment on this portion of the passage.

¹¹And he went into Jerusalem, into the temple, and he looked over everything, and it being evening, he went out to Bethany with the twelve.

The crowd has one agenda, but that is not the same agenda as Jesus has. Throughout Mark, Jesus has been in conflict with the crowds and with his disciples. Each group has a plan for Jesus’ life and ministry, but Jesus has a definite plan not to get derailed.