Mark 12 commentary

MARK 12 COMMENTARY
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
The Parable of the Tenants
1 Jesus then began to speak to them in parables:
“A man planted a vineyard. He put a wall
around it, dug a pit for the winepress and built
a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to
some farmers and moved to another place.
CLARKE, "A certain man planted a vineyard - See this parable explained,
Mat_21:33-41 (note).
GILL, "And he began to speak unto them by parables,.... As of the two sons
the father bid go to work in the vineyard; and of the planting of a vineyard, and
letting it out to husbandmen, as here; though the latter is only related by this
evangelist, yet both are by Matthew. This was not the first time of his speaking by
parables to the people, though it might be the first time he spake in this way to the
chief priests and elders, and who are particularly designed in them.
A certain man planted a vineyard. The Persic version adds, "with many trees":
that is, with vines, though sometimes other trees, as fig trees, were planted in
vineyards; see Luk_13:6. This man is, by the Evangelist Matthew, called an
"householder": by whom is meant God the Father, as distinguished from his Son, he
is afterward said to send: and by the "vineyard", planted by him, is meant the
vineyard of the Lord of hosts, the men of Israel, Isa_5:1;
and set an hedge about it, or "wall", as the Persic version renders it; meaning
either the law, not the Jews oral law, or the traditions of the elders, which were not of
God's setting, but the ceremonial and moral law; or the wall of protection by divine
power, which was set around the Jewish nation especially when they went up to their
solemn feasts.
And digged a place for the winefat. The Syriac and Arabic versions add, "in it";
and the Persic version, "in the vineyard"; for this was made in the vineyard, where
they, trod and squeezed the grapes when gathered; and may design the altar in the
house of the Lord, where the libations, or drink offerings, were poured out;
1

and built a tower. The Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic versions add, "in it"; for this
also was built in the vineyard, and may intend either the city of Jerusalem; or the
temple in it, the watch house where the priests watched, and did their service, day
and night.
And let it out to husbandmen; or "workmen", as the Arabic version renders it,
who wrought in it, and took care of the vines. The Ethiopic version renders it, "and
set over it a worker and keeper of the vineyard"; by whom are meant the priests and
Levites, to whom were committed the care of the people, with respect to religious
things:
and went into a far country; left the people of the Jews to these husbandmen, or
rulers, whether civil or ecclesiastical, but chiefly the latter, to be instructed and
directed by them, according to the laws and rules given them by the Lord; See Gill on
Mat_21:33.
HENRY, "Christ had formerly in parables showed how he designed to set up the
gospel church; now he begins in parables to show how he would lay aside the Jewish
church, which it might have been grafted into the stock of, but was built upon the
ruins of. This parable we had just as we have it here, Mat_21:33. We may observe
here,
I. They that enjoy the privileges of the visible church, have a vineyard let out to
them, which is capable of great improvement, and from the occupiers of which rent is
justly expected. When God showed his word unto Jacob, his statutes and judgments
unto Israel (Psa_147:19), when he set up his temple among them, his priesthood,
and his ordinances, then he let out to them the vineyard he had planted; which he
hedged, and in which he built a tower, Mar_12:1. Members of the church are God's
tenants, and they have both a good Landlord and a good bargain, and may live well
upon it, if it be not their own fault.
JAMIESON, "Mar_12:1-12. Parable of the wicked husbandmen. ( = Mat_
21:33-46; Luk_20:9-18).
See on Mat_21:33-46.
BARCLAY, "THE COMING OF THE KING (Mark 11:1-6)
11:1-6 When they were coming near to Jerusalem, to Bethphage and to Bethany,
Jesus despatched two of his disciples, and said to them, "Go into the village
opposite you, and as soon as you come into it, you will find tethered there a colt,
on which no man has ever yet sat. Loose it and bring it to me. And if anyone says
to you, 'Why are you doing this?' say, 'The Lord needs it,' and immediately he
will send it." And they went away and they found the colt tethered, outside a
door, on the open street, and they loosed it. And some of those who were
standing by said to them, "What are you doing loosing this colt?" They said to
them what Jesus had told them to say, and they let them go.
We have come to the last stage of the journey. There had been the time of
withdrawal around Caesarea Philippi in the far north. There had been the time
in Galilee. There had been the stay in the hill-country of Judaea and in the
regions beyond Jordan. There had been the road through Jericho. Now comes
2

Jerusalem.
We have to note something without which the story is almost unintelligible.
When we read the first three gospels we get the idea that this was actually Jesus'
first visit to Jerusalem. They are concerned to tell the story of Jesus' work in
Galilee. We must remember that the gospels are very short. Into their short
compass is crammed the work of three years, and the writers were bound to
select the things in which they were interested and of which they had special
knowledge. And when we read the fourth gospel we find Jesus frequently in
Jerusalem. (John 2:13, John 5:1, John 7:10.) We find in fact that he regularly
went up to Jerusalem for the great feasts.
There is no real contradiction here. The first three gospels are specially
interested in the Galilaean ministry, and the fourth in the Judaean. In fact,
moreover, even the first three have indications that Jesus was not infrequently in
Jerusalem. There is his close friendship with Martha and Mary and Lazarus at
Bethany, a friendship which speaks of many visits. There is the fact that Joseph
of Arimathaea was his secret friend. And above all there is Jesus' saying in
Matthew 23:37 that often he would have gathered together the people of
Jerusalem as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings but they were
unwilling. Jesus could not have said that unless there had previously been more
than one appeal which had met with a cold response.
This explains the incident of the colt. Jesus did not leave things until the last
moment. He knew what he was going to do and long ago he had made
arrangements with a friend. When he sent forward his disciples, he sent them
with a pass-word that had been pre-arranged--"The Lord needs it now." This
was not a sudden, reckless decision of Jesus. It was something to which all his life
had been budding up.
Bethphage and Bethany were villages near Jerusalem. Very probably Bethphage
means house of figs and Bethany means house of dates. They must have been
very close because we know from the Jewish law that Bethphage was one of the
circle of villages which marked the limit of a Sabbath day's journey, that is, less
than a mile, while Bethany was one of the recognized lodging--places for pilgrims
to the Passover when Jerusalem was full.
The prophets of Israel had always had a very distinctive method of getting their
message across. When words failed to move people they did something dramatic,
as if to say, "If you will not hear, you must be compelled to see." (compare
specially 1 Kings 11:30-32.) These dramatic actions were what we might call
acted warnings or dramatic sermons. That method was what Jesus was
employing here. His action was a deliberate dramatic claim to be Messiah.
But we must be careful to note just what he was doing. There was a saying of the
prophet Zechariah (Zechariah 9:9), "Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion. Shout
aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem. Lo, your king comes to you; triumphant and
victorious is he, and riding on an ass and upon a colt the foal of an ass." The
whole impact is that the King was coming in peace. In Palestine the ass was not a
3

despised beast, but a noble one. When a king went to war he rode on a horse,
when he came in peace he rode on an ass.
G. K. Chesterton has a poem in which he makes the modem donkey speak:
"When fishes flew ind forests walk'd
And figs grew upon thorn,
Some moment when the moon was blood
Then surely I was born.
"With monstrous head and sickening cry
And ears like errant wings,
The devil's walking parody
Of all four-footed things.
"The tatter'd outlaw of the earth
Of ancient crooked will;
Starve, scourge, deride me, I am dumb,
I keep my secret still.
"Fools! For I also had my hour,
One far fierce hour and sweet;
There was a shout about my ears,
And palms before my feet."
It is a wonderful poem. Nowadays the ass is a beast of amused contempt, but in
the time of Jesus it was the beast of kings. But we must note what kind of a king
Jesus was claiming to be. He came meek and lowly. He came in peace and for
peace. They greeted him as the Son of David, but they did not understand.
It was just at this time that the Hebrew poems, The Psalms of Solomon, were
written. They represent the kind of Son of David whom people expected. Here is
their description of him:
"Behold, O Lord, and raise up unto them their king, the son of
David,
4

At the time, in the which thou seest, O God, that he may
reign over Israel, thy servant.
And gird him with strength that he may shatter unrighteous rulers,
And that he may purge Jerusalem from nations that trample
her down to destruction.
Wisely, righteously he shall thrust out sinners from the
inheritance,
He shall destroy the pride of sinners as a potter's vessel.
With a rod of iron he shall break in pieces all their substance.
He shall destroy the godless nations with the word of his
mouth.
At his rebuke nations shall flee before him,
And he shall reprove sinners for the thoughts of their
hearts.
"All nations shall be in fear before him,
For he will smite the earth with the word of his mouth forever."
(Wis 17:21-25, 39.)
That was the kind of poem on which the people nourished their hearts. They
were looking for a king who would shatter and smash and break. Jesus knew it--
and he came meek and lowly, riding upon an ass.
When Jesus rode into Jerusalem that day, he claimed to be king, but he claimed
to be King of peace. His action was a contradiction of all that men hoped for and
expected.
COFFMAN, "The Gospel of Mark condensed a great detail of material into the
remaining six chapters, and not all of it is in strict chronological sequence.
However, in this eleventh chapter, there are three successive days designated
(Mark 11:11:11; Mark 11:11:12; Mark 11:11:20; and Mark 11:11:27). In the
designed brevity of the gospel, it was inevitable that some events would be
recorded with many details omitted and that some things would be omitted
5

altogether. The sections of this chapter are devoted to: the triumphal entry
(Mark 11:1-11), withering of the fig tree (Mark 11:12-14 and Mark 20:25), the
second cleansing of the temple (Mark 11:15-19), and the question concerning the
authority of Jesus (Mark 11:27-33).
THE TRIUMPHAL ENTRY
This event is recorded in all four of the gospels, a testimony of the great
importance attached to it. The four accounts are independent, historical, and
exceedingly significant, each in its own right. There is absolutely no ground
whatever for making any one of them the "original" in its relation to the others.
All are original in the sense of being founded on the event itself and bearing the
most convincing evidence of being truthful accounts of the facts related.
One grows weary of the knee-jerk repetition in so many of the commentaries, as,
for example, in these lines from Cranfield: "The Markan account provides
vividness of detail with the most notable restraint regarding Messianic
colour."[1] Cranfield said this with reference to the event of the triumphal entry,
despite the simple fact that Mark provided less "vividness of detail" than any of
the other sacred authors. Here are the details supplied from the other three
gospels which Mark omitted:
The mother of the colt was a necessary part of the whole event; the colt would
not have followed without her!
Both animals were brought to Jesus.
Garments were spread on both of them.
Jesus sat on both animals (his feet probably on the colt).
The colt was unbroken, unusable except in connection with its mother.
The dramatic descent from the Mount of Olives.
The hailing of Jesus as the King of Israel.
The request of the Pharisees that Jesus rebuke such exclamations.
The presence of two converging multitudes, one from the city coming out to meet
Jesus, the other following from Bethany.
The element of the resurrection of Lazarus stimulating the size of both
converging multitudes.
The stirring up of the whole city.
Christ's reply to the Pharisees that, if the multitudes should remain silent, the
very stones would cry out.
6

The frustration of the Pharisees who said, "Behold how ye prevail nothing; lo,
the world is gone after him."SIZE>
The astounding fact of the Gospel of Mark is not "vividness of detail," as so
monotonously alleged, but rather an astounding lack of detail as in the instance
before us. The significance of this is that the "vividness of detail" allegedly found
in Mark is the principal prop of the so-called Markan theory. This pattern of
Mark's omission of details supplied by the other gospels extends throughout the
gospel, the few instances in which he gave more details being utterly outweighed
by those in which, as here, he gave far less. Therefore, it may be dogmatically
affirmed that Mark's overwhelming superiority in the matter of "vivid details"
is a scholarly conceit void of all Scriptural support. The "greater vividness of
details" assertion is contradicted by the very size of the gospel itself, being by far
the shortest. Furthermore, there is the fact, already noted, that Mark's style is
somewhat verbose, using more words to convey fewer thoughts. Note the
following:
MARK 8:11
And the Pharisees came forth, began to question with him, asking of him a sign
from heaven, tempting him.
MATTHEW 16:1
And the Pharisees and Sadducees came, and tempting him, asked him to show
them a sign from heaven.
In the above, Matthew with one less word gives all of the facts recorded by
Mark, plus the added information that the Pharisees were accompanied by the
Sadducees. This is characteristic throughout the gospels.SIZE>
ENDNOTE:
[1] C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel according to St. Mark (Cambridge: The
University Press, 1966), p. 347.
And when they draw nigh unto Jerusalem, unto Bethphage and Bethany, at the
mount of Olives, he sendeth two of his disciples. (Mark 11:1)
Bethphage, meaning "place of figs." and Bethany, meaning "place of dates,"
were two villages almost adjacent to Jerusalem, being in fact nestled into the
Mount of Olives, a 2,600-foot elevation lying along the eastern boundary of
Jerusalem.
He sendeth two of his disciples ... It is not known who these were.
LIGHTFOOT, “[A certain man planted a vineyard.] The priests and Pharisees
knew, saith Matthew, that "these things were spoken of them," Matthew 21:45.
Nor is it any wonder; for the Jews boasted that they were the Lord's vineyard:
and they readily observed a wrong done to that vineyard by any: but how far
7

were they from taking notice, how unfruitful they were, and unthankful to the
Lord of the vineyard!
"The matter may be compared to a king that had a vineyard; and there were
three who were enemies to it. What were they? One cut down the branches. The
second cut off the bunches. And the third rooted up the vines. That king is the
King of kings, the Blessed Lord. The vineyard of the Lord is the house of Israel.
The three enemies are Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, and Haman," &c.
[A vineyard.] "If a man plants one row of five vines, the school of Shammai
saith, That it is a vineyard. But the school of Hillel saith, It is not a vineyard,
until there be two rows of vines there."
[Set a hedge about it.] "What is a hedge? Let it be ten handbreadths high": less
than so is not a hedge.
[Digged a place for the winefat.] Let the fat be ten handbreadths deep, and four
broad.
[Built a tower.] Let the watchhouse, which is in the vineyard, be ten high, and
four broad. Cubits are to be understood. For Rambam saith, watchhouse is a
high place where the vine-dresser stands to overlook the vineyard.
[Let it out to husbandmen.] "He that lets out his vineyard to a keeper, either as a
husbandman, or as one to keep it gratis, and he enters into covenant with him, to
dig it, prune it, dress it, at his own cost; but he neglects it, and doth not so; he is
guilty, as if he should with his own hand lay the vineyard waste."
MACLAREN, "DISHONEST TENANTS
The ecclesiastical rulers had just been questioning Jesus as to the authority by which
He acted. His answer, a counter-question as to John’s authority, was not an evasion.
If they decided whence John came, they would not be at any loss as to whence Jesus
came. If they steeled themselves against acknowledging the Forerunner, they would
not be receptive of Christ’s message. That keen-edged retort plainly indicates Christ’s
conviction of the rulers’ insincerity, and in this parable He charges home on these
solemn hypocrites their share in the hereditary rejection of messengers whose
authority was unquestionable. Much they cared for even divine authority, as they and
their predecessors had shown through centuries! The veil of parable is transparent
here. Jesus increased in severity and bold attack as the end drew near.
I. The parable begins with a tender description of the preparation and
allotment of the vineyard.
The picture is based upon Isaiah’s lovely apologue (Isa_5:1), which was, no doubt,
familiar to the learned officials. But there is a slight difference in the application of
the metaphor which in Isaiah means the nation, and in the parable is rather the
theocracy as an institution, or, as we may put it roughly, the aggregate of divine
revelations and appointments which constituted the religious prerogatives of Israel.
Our Lord follows the original passage in the description of the preparation of the
vineyard, but it would probably be going too far to press special meanings on the
8

wall, the wine-press, and the watchman’s tower. The fence was to keep off
marauders, whether passers-by or ‘the boar out of the wood’ (Psa_80:12-13); the
wine-press, for which Mark uses the word which means rather the vat into which the
juice from the press proper flowed, was to extract and collect the precious liquid; the
tower was for the watchman.
A vineyard with all these fittings was ready for profitable occupation. Thus
abundantly had God furnished Israel with all that was needed for fruitful, happy
service. What was true of the ancient Church is still more true of us who have
received every requisite for holy living. Isaiah’s solemn appeal has a still sharper edge
for Christians: ‘Judge, I pray you, betwixt me and my vineyard. What could have
been done more to my vineyard that I have not done in it?’
The ‘letting of the vineyard to husbandmen’ means the committal to Israel and its
rulers of these divine institutions, and the holding them responsible for their
fruitfulness. It may be a question whether the tenants are to be understood as only
the official persons, or whether, while these are primarily addressed, they represent
the whole people. The usual interpretation limits the meaning to the rulers, but, if so,
it is difficult to carry out the application, as the vineyard would then have to be
regarded as being the nation, which confuses all. The language of Matthew (which
threatens the taking of the vineyard and giving it to another nation) obliges us to
regard the nation as included in the husbandmen, though primarily the expression is
addressed to the rulers.
But more important is it to note the strong expressions for man’s quasi-
independence and responsibility. The Jew was invested with full possession of the
vineyard. We all, in like manner, have intrusted to us, to do as we will with, the
various gifts and powers of Christ’s gospel. God, as it were, draws somewhat apart
from man, that he may have free play for his choice, and bear the burden of
responsibility. The divine action was conspicuous at the time of founding the polity
of Judaism, and then came long years in which there were no miracles, but all things
continued as they were. God was as near as before, but He seemed far off. Thus Jesus
has, in like manner, gone ‘into a far country to receive a kingdom and to return’; and
we, the tenants of a richer vineyard than Israel’s, have to administer what He has
intrusted to us, and to bring near by faith Him who is to sense far off.
II. The next scenes paint the conduct of the dishonest vine-dressers.
We mark the stern, dark picture drawn of the continued and brutal violence, as well
as the flagrant unfaithfulness, of the tenants. Matthew’s version gives emphasis to
the increasing harshness of treatment of the owner’s messengers, as does Mark’s.
First comes beating, then wounding, then murder. The interpretation is self-evident.
The ‘servants’ are the prophets, mostly men inferior in rank to the hierarchy,
shepherds, fig-gatherers, and the like. They came to rouse Israel to a sense of the
purpose for which they had received their distinguishing prerogatives, and their
reward had been contempt and maltreatment. They ‘had trial of mockings and
scourgings, of bonds and imprisonment: they were stoned, they were sawn asunder,
they were slain with the sword.’
The indictment is the same as that by which Stephen wrought the Sanhedrim into a
paroxysm of fury. To make such a charge as Jesus did, in the very Temple courts, and
with the already hostile priests glaring at Him while He spoke, was a deliberate
assault on them and their predecessors, whose true successors they showed
themselves to be. They had just been solemnly questioning Him as to His authority.
He answers by thus passing in review the uniform treatment meted by them and
their like to those who came with God’s manifest authority.
9

If a mere man had spoken this parable, we might admire the magnificent audacity of
such an accusation. But the Speaker is more than man, and we have to recognise the
judicial calmness and severity of His tone. Israel’s history, as it shaped itself before
His ‘pure eyes and perfect judgment,’ was one long series of divine favours and of
human ingratitude, of ample preparations for righteous living and of no result, of
messengers sent and their contumelious rejection. We wonder at the sad monotony
of such requital. Are we doing otherwise?
III. Then comes the last effort of the Owner, the last arrow in the quiver
of Almighty Love.
Two things are to be pondered in this part of the parable. First, that wonderful
glimpse into the depths of God’s heart, in the hope expressed by the Owner of the
vineyard, brings out very clearly Christ’s claim, made there before all these hostile,
keen critics, to stand in an altogether singular relation to God. He asserts His
Sonship as separating Him from the class of prophets who are servants only, and as
constituting a relationship with the Father prior to His coming to earth. His Sonship
is no mere synonym for His Messiahship, but was a fact long before Bethlehem; and
its assertion lifts for us a corner of the veil of cloud and darkness round the throne of
God. Not less striking is the expression of a frustrated hope in ‘they will reverence My
Son.’ Men can thwart God’s purpose. His divine charity ‘hopeth all things.’ The
mystery thus sharply put here is but that which is presented everywhere in the co-
existence of God’s purposes and man’s freedom.
The other noteworthy point is the corresponding casting of the vine-dressers’
thoughts into words. Both representations are due to the graphic character of
parable; both crystallise into speech motives which were not actually spoken. It is
unnecessary to suppose that even the rulers of Israel had gone the awful length of
clear recognition of Christ’s Messiahship, and of looking each other in the face and
whispering such a fiendish resolve. Jesus is here dragging to light unconscious
motives. The masses did wish to have their national privileges and to avoid their
national duties. The rulers did wish to have their sway over minds and consciences
undisturbed. They did resent Jesus’ interference, chiefly because they instinctively
felt that it threatened their position. They wanted to get Him out of the way, that they
might lord it at will. They could have known that He was the Son, and they
suppressed dawning suspicions that He was. Alas! they have descendants still in
many of us who put away His claims, even while we secretly recognise them, in order
that we may do as we like without His meddling with us! The rulers’ calculation was a
blunder. As Augustine says, ‘They slew Him that they might possess, and, because
they slew, they lost.’ So is it always. Whoever tries to secure any desired end by
putting away his responsibility to render to God the fruit of his thankful service, loses
the good which he would fain clutch at for his own. All sin is a mistake.
The parable passes from thinly veiled history to equally transparent prediction. How
sadly and how unshrinkingly does the meek yet mighty Victim disclose to the
conspirators His perfect knowledge of the murder which they were even now
hatching in their minds! He foresees all, and will not lift a finger to prevent it. Mark
puts the ‘killing’ before the ‘casting out of the vineyard,’ while Matthew and Luke
invert the order of the two things. The slaughtered corpse was, as a further indignity,
thrown over the wall, by which is symbolically expressed His exclusion from Israel,
and the vine-dressers’ delusion that they now had secured undisturbed possession.
IV. The last point is the authoritative sentence on the evil-doers.
Mark’s condensed account makes Christ Himself answer His own question. Probably
we are to suppose that, with hypocritical readiness, some of the rulers replied, as the
other Evangelists represent, and that Jesus then solemnly took up their words. If
10

anything could have enraged the rulers more than the parable itself, the distinct
declaration of the transference of Israel’s prerogatives to more worthy tenants would
do so. The words are heavy with doom. They carry a lesson for us. Stewardship
implies responsibility, and faithlessness, sooner or later, involves deprivation. The
only way to keep God’s gifts is to use them for His glory. ‘The grace of God,’ says
Luther somewhere, ‘is like a flying summer shower.’ Where are Ephesus and the
other apocalyptic churches? Let us ‘take heed lest, if God spared not the natural
branches, He also spare not us.’
Jesus leaves the hearers with the old psalm ringing in their ears, which proclaimed
that ‘the stone which the builders rejected becomes the head stone of the corner.’
Other words of the same psalm had been chanted by the crowd in the procession on
entering the city. Their fervour was cooling, but the prophecy would still be fulfilled.
The builders are the same as the vine-dressers; their rejection of the stone is parallel
with slaying the Son.
But though Jesus foretells His death, He also foretells His triumph after death. How
could He have spoken, almost in one breath, the prophecy of His being slain and ‘cast
out of the vineyard,’ and that of His being exalted to be the very apex and shining
summit of the true Temple, unless He had been conscious that His death was indeed
not the end, but the centre, of His work, and His elevation to universal and
unchanging dominion?
BI 1-12, "A certain man planted a vineyard and set an hedge about it.
The vineyard, or the visible Church transferred to the Gentiles
I. The Church is God’s peculiar treasure.
II. The Jewish people were appointed its guardians.
III. The Jewish nation was unfaithful to its trust.
1. They rejected the moral government of Jehovah.
2. They rejected His political control as the head of their theocracy.
IV. The sacred trust was transferred to other peoples and nations.
V. They were fearfully punished as a nation.
1. We are now led to admire the sublime features of the scheme of Providence.
2. That there is a great responsibility on the nations, communities, and
individuals, to which God commits His Church.
3. We are the husbandmen. (E. N. Kirk, D. D.)
God the Proprietor of all
The manufacturer in his office knows that through building after building filled with
machinery, running out to the very first and rudest processes, every single act of
every single operative, down to the last and lowest boy, has its direct commercial
connection with him and his interest. There is not one of the wheels that revolve of
the ten thousand; there is not a thread spun or woven; there is not a colour mixed
nor employed; there is not a thing done by any of the hands working in his vast
establishment of whom there may be hundreds or even thousands, that is not related
directly to his interest. The whole economy of the globe is, as it were, but a small
11

manufactory under the direction of God; and there is not a single act performed in it
which has not some relation to the thought, the feelings, the purpose of God. And He
declares Himself to be in a wonderful sense identified with everything that is going
on in life, in one way or another. (H. W. Beecher.)
Obligation to God
Horace Bushnell tells us that a few years before his death, Daniel Webster, having a
large party of friends dining with him at Marshfield, was called on by one of the party
as they became seated at the table to specify what one thing he had met with in his
life which had done most for him, or had contributed most to the success of his
personal history. After a moment he replied: “The most fruitful and elevating
influence I have ever seemed to meet with has been my impression of obligation to
God.”
The world’s ingratitude
Socrates, one of the wisest and noblest men of his time, after a long career of service
in denouncing the wrongs of his age, and trying to improve the morals of the people,
was condemned to death and obliged to drink poison. Dante, when Italy was torn by
political factions, each ambitious of power, and all entirely unscrupulous as to the
means employed to attain it, laboured with untiring zeal to bring about Italian unity,
and yet his patriotism met no other reward than exile. “Florence for Italy, and Italy
for the world,” were his words when he heard his sentence of banishment. Columbus
was sent home in irons from the country he had discovered. The last two years of his
life present a picture of black ingratitude on the part of the Crown to this
distinguished benefactor of the kingdom, which it is truly painful to contemplate. He
died, perhaps, the poorest man in the whole kingdom he had spent his lifetime to
enrich. Bruno, of Nola, for his advocacy of the Copernican system, was seized by the
Inquisition and burned alive at Rome in 1600, in the presence of an immense
concourse. Scioppus, the Latinist, who was present at the execution, with a sarcastic
allusion to one of Bruno’s heresies, the infinity of worlds, wrote, “The flames carried
him to those worlds.” (M. Denton.)
God’s forbearance
The Macedonian king, Alexander the Great, who, as in one triumphal march,
conquered the world, observed a very singular custom in his method of carrying on
war. Whenever he encamped with his army before a fortified city and laid siege to it,
he caused to be set up a great lantern, which was kept lighted by day and night. This
was a signal to the besieged, and what it meant was that as long as the lamp burned
they had time to save themselves by surrender, but that when once the light should
be extinguished, the city, and all that were in it, would be irrevocably given over to
destruction. And the conqueror kept his word with terrible consistency. When the
light was put out, and the city was not given up, all hope of mercy was over. The
Macedonians stormed the place, and if it was taken all were cut to pieces who were
capable of bearing arms, and there was no quarter or forgiveness possible. Now, it is
the good pleasure of our God to have compassion and to show mercy. But a city or a
people can arrive at such a pitch of moral corruption that the moral order of the
world can only be saved by its destruction. It was so with the whole race of men at the
time of the flood, with Sodom and Gomorrah at a later period, and with the Jewish
people in our Saviour’s time. But before the impending stroke of judgment fell, God
always, so to speak, set up the lamp of grace, which was not only a signal of mercy,
12

but also a light to show men that they were in the way of death, and a power to turn
them from it. (Otto Funcke.)
Pursued by God’s mercy
“Saved at the bottom of the sea!” So said one of our Sydney divers to a city
missionary. In his house, in one of our suburbs, might be seen lately what would
probably strike the visitor as a very strange chimney ornament; the shells of an oyster
holding fast a piece of printed paper. But devoutly do I wish that every chimney
ornament could tell such a tale of usefulness. The possessor of this ornament might
well value it. He was diving amongst wrecks on our coast, when he observed at the
bottom of the sea this oyster on a rock, with this piece of paper in his mouth, which
he detached, and commenced to read through the goggles of his head dress. It was a
tract, and, coming to him thus strangely and unexpectedly, so impressed his
unconverted heart, that he said, “I can hold out against God’s mercy in Christ no
longer, since it pursues me thus.” He tells us that he became, whilst in the ocean’s
depth, a repentant, converted, and (as he was assured) sin-forgiven man-“saved at
the bottom of the sea!” (Mother’s Treasury.)
God’s longsuffering
The axe carried before the Roman consuls was always bound up in a bundle of rods.
An old author tells us that “the rods were tied up with knotted cords, and that when
an offender was condemned to be punished the executioner would untie the knots,
one by one, and meanwhile the magistrate would look the culprit in the face, to
observe any signs of repentance and watch his words, to see if he could find a motive
for mercy; and thus justice went to its work deliberately and without passion.” The
axe was enclosed in rods to show that the extreme penalty was never inflicted till
milder means had failed; first the rod, and the axe only as a terrible necessity. (C. H.
Spurgeon.)
God’s love in sending His Son
What would tempt you to give the baby out of your cradle? Is there anyone you love
on earth, mother, that would tempt you to give your baby for that? But what if the
child had grown up and had come to man’s estate? Say it had bloomed into fruition
and all your hope was on it. What do you love in this world that would tempt you to
give this child up as a sacrifice? You might for the country in hours of heroism. Many
and many a mother has done a work that was divine when she consecrated her only
son and sent him forth into the war, believing that she should never see him again.
How many hearts are touched with the thought of this remembrance. But, oh, is
there language that can expound such heroism, such zeal, such enthusiasm, as must
inhere in the hearts of everyone that can do such work as that? And yet our hearts are
small comparatively, and pulseless and shallow, and our human senses, as compared
with God, are like a drop of water in comparison with the ocean. And what is the love
of God, the Infinite, whose flowings are like the Gulf Stream? What are the depths,
and the breadths, and the lengths of the love of God in Christ Jesus, when, looking
upon a world that was so degraded and animal like, He gave His only begotten Son to
die for it that there might be an interpretation of the love of God to the world. (H. W.
Beecher.)
13

Christ ungratefully treated
Surely a servant of the government may risk himself in the very heart of a convict
prison alone, if he is the bearer of a royal pardon for all the inmates. In such a ease it
would not be necessary to look out for a man of rare courage who might dare to carry
the proclamation to the convicts. Give him but the message of free pardon, and he
may go in unarmed, with all safety, like Daniel in the den of lions. When Christ
Himself came to the world-the great convict prison of the universe-came the
Ambassador from God, bringing peace-they said: “This is the heir; come, let us kill
Him!” He came unto His own, and His own received Him not; and the servant is not
greater than his Lord. (A.)
Cruelty to Christ
Some time ago a father had a son who had broken his mother’s heart. After her death
he went on from bad to worse. One night he was going out to spend it in vice, and the
old man went to the door as the young one was going out, and said, “My son, I want
to ask a favour of you tonight. You have not spent one night with me since your
mother was buried, and I have been so lonesome without her and without you, and
now I want to have you spend tonight with me; I want to have a talk with you about
the future.” The young man said, “No, father, I do not want to stay; it is gloomy here
at home.” He said, “Won’t you stay for my sake?” and the son said he would not. At
last, the old man said, “If I cannot persuade you to stay, if you are determined to go
down to ruin, and to break my heart, as you have your mother’s-for these grey hairs
cannot stand it much longer-you shall not go without my making one more effort to
save you;” and the old man threw open the door, and laid himself upon the threshold,
and said, “If you go out tonight you must go over this old body of mine;” and what
did he do? Why, that young man leaped over the father, and on to ruin he went. Did
you ever think that God has given His Son? Yes, He has laid Him, as it were, right
across your path that you might not go down to hell; and if there is a soul in this
assembly that goes to hell, you must go over the murdered body of God’s Son. (D. L.
Moody.)
The stream of mercy directed into another course
In the channel through which a running stream is directed upon a mill wheel, the
same turning of a valve that shuts the water out of one course throws it into another,
Thus the Jews, by rejecting the counsel of God, shut themselves out, and at the same
moment opened a way whereby mercy might flow to us who were afar off. (William
Arnot.)
The parable of the vineyard.
One who was wont to illustrate His teaching by imagery drawn from the objects
which surrounded Him, could hardly fail in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem to speak
of vineyards. The hills and table-lands of Judah were the home of the vine. Five times
our Lord availed Himself of this figure for His parables (St. Mat_20:1; Mat_21:28;
Mat_21:33; St. Luk_13:6; St. Joh_15:1); and though it is doubtful in what locality He
spoke that of the labourers in the vineyard, it is almost certain that the remaining
four are intimately associated with Jerusalem. In many places in Southern Palestine
14

the features of this parable may still be traced. The loose stone fences, like the walls
so familiar to the eye in Wales or Derbyshire; the remains of the old watchtowers,
generally in one corner of the enclosure; and the cisterns hewn in the solid rock in
which the grapes were pressed-all remain to the present day. It was the custom in our
Lord’s time for the owner in leasing a vineyard to tenants, to arrange for the rent to
be paid, not in money but in kind-a certain portion of the produce being set apart as
“a first charge” for the landlord. The system prevails in modem times in some parts
of France, and more widely under the name of “ryot-rent” in India. (H. M. Luckock,
D. D.)
God’s dealings with the Jews are signified in this parable
I. He did by His special providence protect and defend the Jewish Church, against all
enemies and dangers both bodily and spiritual, which might annoy them and so
hinder their fruitfulness.
II. He afforded them all necessary helps and means to further them in grace, and to
make them spiritually fruitful.
1. The Ministry of the Word and Sacraments, together with the whole true
worship of God prescribed in the moral and ceremonial Law.
2. Godly discipline.
3. Afflictions and chastisements.
4. Mercies and deliverances.
5. Miracles. (G. Petter.)
God’s care of His church
Where God plants a true church, He does not so leave it, but is further careful to
furnish it with all things needful for a church; and not only for the being, but also for
the well-being of it; that it may not only be a church, but a happy and prosperous
church, growing and flourishing in grace, and bringing forth plentiful fruits of grace,
such as God requires and are acceptable to Him by Jesus Christ. As a careful and wise
householder, having planted a vineyard for his use, doth not so leave it, and do no
more to it; but is at further care and cost to furnish it with such things as are
necessary and commodious, to the end it may grow, flourish, and prosper, and that it
may bring forth much fruit and profit to the owner of it. So here, the Lord having
planted a church in any place or amongst any people, doth not so leave it, but is
careful to use all further means for the good of His church; especially for the spiritual
good and prosperity of it, that it may grow, and increase, and prosper spiritually, and
bring forth much spiritual fruit to God who planted it. Thus He did to the church of
the Jews: He did not only plant His vineyard amongst them, by adopting and calling
them to be His people, but withal He hedged about that vineyard, and set up a
winepress, and built a watchtower in it, i.e., He furnished the Jews with all things
needful to make them happy and prosperous, truly growing, thriving, and prospering
in grace, and bringing forth plentiful fruits thereof, to the glory of God, the good of
others, and the furtherance of their own salvation. To this end, He compassed them
about with His special providence, as with a strong and sure hedge, to defend and
keep them safe from all enemies and dangers bodily and spiritual which might annoy
them; He gave and continued to them all spiritual helps and means of grace, and a
government of His own appointing; He corrected them with afflictions, bestowed on
15

them great mercies and deliverances, and wrought miracles for their benefit, to
further their spiritual good and prosperity. And this is but a sample of how He treats
every true church that He plants. (G. Petter.)
The church divinely protected
Whether in the parable the hedge and winefat and tower had each a special
application in the system of God’s providential care for His ancient people, we cannot
say; but at least in one particular we may trace a peculiar fitness in the figure of “the
hedge.” What was it that protected the land of Israel year by year during the three
Great Festivals, when by the Divine Law the country was denuded of its male
population; when every man from north, south, east, and west, from the most
unguarded districts, leaving their flocks and herds, their wives and little ones, totally
unprotected from their bitterest enemies, went up to Jerusalem, the centre of
religious worship? What was it that held in check the Moabite and Ammonite, and
the robber tribes of Arabia? It was the fence of Divine protection, which, like a wall of
fire, God in His providence had built up, so that no one dared to pass it. (H. M.
Luckock, D. D.)
The pleading of the last Messenger
The coming of the Son of God in human form, as Emmanuel, is love’s great plea for
reconciliation. Who can resist so powerful an argument?
I. The amazing mission.
1. He comes after many rejections of Divine love. None have been left without
admonitions and expostulations from God. From childhood upwards He has
called us by most earnest entreaties of faithful men and affectionate women; and,
in spite of our obstinate resistance, He still sends to us His Son to plead with us
and urge us to go to our Father.
2. He comes for no personal ends. It is for our own sake that He strives with us.
Nothing but tender regard for our well-being makes Him warn us.
3. See who this Messenger is.
(1) He is One greatly beloved of His Father.
(2) In Himself He is of surpassing excellence.
(3) His graciousness is as conspicuous as His glory.
(4) His manner is most winning.
(5) He is God’s ultimatum.
Nothing remains when Christ is refused. Heaven contains no further Messenger.
Rejecting Christ you reject all, and shut against yourself the only possible door of
hope.
II. The astounding crime. There are many ways of killing the Son of God.
1. Denying His deity.
2. Denying His atonement.
3. Remaining indifferent to His claims.
16

4. Refusing to obey His gospel.
Thus you may virtually put Him away, and so be guilty of His blood, and crucify Him
afresh.
III. The appropriate punishment. Our Lord leaves our own consciences to depict the
overwhelming misery of those who carry their rebellion to its full length. He leaves
our imagination to prescribe a doom sufficient for a crime so base, so daring, so
cruel. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
The son rejected
I. The owner’s claim. His right and authority are complete. God presses His right to
our love and service. Blessings are privileges, and privileges are obligations. We owe
Him more than Israel owed. The human will has a natural repugnance to submission
to absolute authority. But God never presents His claim as grounded on this alone.
He tells of His love before He declares His laws. Only a bad heart can resent the
authority or refuse the service.
II. The owner’s loving patience. There never was an earthly employer who showed
such persistent kindness towards such persistent rebellion. This is a faint picture of
God’s forbearance towards Israel. Mercies, deliverances, revelations, gather around
their history.
III. The rejection. Rejection of the prophets leads up to the rejection of Christ.
Privilege and place do not lessen the danger.
IV. The judgment. It was just, necessary, complete, remediless.
V. The final exaltation of the son. The kingdom is not to perish, only the rebellious.
(C. M. Southgate.)
The Head of the Corner
I. The picture suggested by the scene which Christ calls up into imagination would be
likely to cause surprise, or be termed an exaggeration, if it were laid anywhere
outside of Palestine. Down even to the present time customs remain very much the
same as in Christ’s day in that oppressed country.
1. The insecurity of property and person is proverbial. The Scripture record
might be incorporated into the ordinary guide books.
2. There has been in all ages a special confusion of iniquitous dealing in respect
to real estate. Thievery and violence seem to be the rule in the east, peace and
possession the exception. Something is to be charged to the government; the laws
are indefinite, and bribery is rife; indeed, the government sets the example of
systematized crime. In all history of the Holy Land, from Christ’s time to ours,
the rulers have been organized for official robbery and outrage. No titles are
secure, even when one has paid for his vineyard or his building plot.
3. Then, too, the custom of committing all oversight and control of farms and
orchards to underlings makes the matter a great deal worse. Absenteeism is a
fruitful reason for crime (Mar_12:1). Those men left in charge of the vineyard, to
whom messenger after messenger had been sent, and who now were
peremptorily addressed by the owner with a final demand in the august person of
his son, are represented as communing with each other, and saying, as they laid
17

the wiles of their conspiracy, what might be construed into an utterance of their
belief that, if this one inheritor were only dead, all heirship would be
extinguished (Mar_12:7).
4. Still, so far as we can learn, there was no ground for hope of success in this
plot. No enactment has come down to us which would sustain such an entailment
or division or heirship as those infamous creatures assumed. Luke’s language
(Luk_20:14) agrees with Mark’s; but Matthew (Mat_21:38) says, “Let us seize on
his inheritance.” This suggests the true interpretation. The husbandmen had no
countenance in the common law; they intended to say that they would make the
vineyard theirs by violence, and hold it by any extremities of force. It was a
singularly stupid plan; it could not have even a plausible look anywhere but in
that wretched region. It assumed an absence of justice, an insecurity of
possession, an immunity from the worst crime, positively oriental in its toleration
of rapine and murder.
5. Add to this the fact that in those early days, when invention had not yet
brought firearms into use, the measures taken for homicide were brutal and hard
beyond description. Not even spears or daggers or knives are used there for
assassination now any more than they used to be. The coarse, rude weapon for
murder is a club or bludgeon of the roughest sort; the Bedawin will have a gun on
their shoulders, but will knock their victim on the head with a knotted stick all
the same. The description, left on record by the Psalmist, is true to this day: “He
sitteth in the lurking places of the villages: in the secret places doth he murder
the innocent: his eyes are privily set against the poor. He lieth in wait secretly as a
lion in his den: he lieth in wait to catch the poor: he doth catch the poor, when he
draweth him into his net. He croucheth, and humbleth himself, that the poor may
fall by his strong ones. He hath said in his heart, God hath forgotten: He hideth
His face; He will never see it.”
6. Hence, this frightful picture was a tremendous invective as well as a vivid
illustration when employed by our Lord. He used it for a similitude in one of His
most direct and forcible arraignments of the Jewish nation for their blind, dull,
coarse, criminal rejection of God’s only-begotten Son, despatched then from high
heaven to secure His Father’s rights from those who had grasped after heirship
by murder.
II. We turn now to the second branch of the story. Our Lord suddenly drops His
figure, and leaves the parable altogether, finishing His application with a quotation
from one of the most familiar of the psalms (Psa_118:22).
1. Thus He illustrates His position. He claims a Messianic psalm for Himself.
Matthew (Mat_21:43) tells us He said to those hearers of His in plain words that
He was speaking this parable concerning them. And He chooses to show them
that, for Himself, there was no fear of the future. The “son” of the story, who got
murder instead of “reverence,” is heard of no more. But the Son of God, though
“rejected” now, should one day come to His place of honour. They understood
Him very well, for in an alarmed sort of murmur they said, “God forbid!” (Luk_
20:16).
2. Thus He predicts His eventual triumph. There is a tradition of the Jewish
Rabbis which relates the history of a wonderful stone, prepared, as they say, for
use in the building of Solomon’s temple. Each block for that matchless edifice was
shaped and fitted for its particular place, and came away from the distant quarry
marked for the masons. But this one was so different from any other that no one
knew what to do with it. Beautiful indeed it was; carved with figures of exquisite
loveliness and grace; but it had no fellow; it fitted nowhere; and at last the
18

impatient and perplexed workmen flung it aside as only a splendid piece of folly.
Years passed, while the proud structure was going up without the sound of axe or
hammer. During all the time this despised fragment of rock was lying in the
valley of Jehoshaphat covered with dirt and moss. Then came the day of
dedication; the vast throng arrived to see what the Israelites were wont to call
“the noblest fabric under the sun.” There it stood crowning the mountain’s ridge,
and shining with whiteness of silver and yellowness of gold. The wondering
multitudes gazed admiringly upon its magnificent proportions, grand in their
splendour of marble. But when one said that the east tower was unfinished, or at
least looked so, the chief architect grew impatient again, and replied that
Solomon was wise, but a builder must admit there was a gap in his plans. By and
by the king drew near in person; with his retinue he rode directly to the
incomplete spot, as if he there expected most to be pleased. “Why is this neglect?”
he asked in tones of indignant surprise: “where is the piece I sent for the head of
this corner?” Then suddenly the frightened workmen bethought themselves of
that rejected stone which they had been spurning as worthless. They sought it
again, cleared it from its defilement, swung it fairly up into its place, and found it
was indeed the top stone fitted so as to give the last grace to the whole.
3. Thus Jesus also clinches His argument. He made His audience see that He was
fulfilling every necessity of the Messiah’s office, and answering to every
prediction made of Him, even down to the receiving of the “rejection” at their
hands as they were now giving it to Him. They were educated in the ancient
oracles of God, and were wont to admit the bearing of every sentence and verse of
prophecy. And when this strange, intrepid Galilean asked them, “Did ye never
read in the Scripture?” they saw that He knew His vantage with the people, and
would be strong enough to hold it against their violence or treachery. There was
force in argument when one brought up a text inspired.
4. Thus, likewise, our Lord enlightened their consciences. There is something
more than logical defeat in their manner after this conversation: there is spiritual
dismay and consternation. “They know that He had spoken the parable against
them.” It was necessary to silence this terrible voice of denunciation. (C. S.
Robinson, D. D.)
They will reverence My Son
A father may be sure that his son will be counted as standing for himself in a peculiar
sense; and that all there is of gratitude or affection or reverence toward himself will
indicate itself in the reception and treatment of that son, wherever the son goes as
the father’s representative. When the Grand Duke Alexis visited America after our
civil war, he was greeted with the liveliest expressions of interest by young and old
throughout the North, because of his father’s sympathy with our government in the
hour of its need. The Prince of Wales, on his visit to this country, was honoured as
the representative of his royal mother; and the admiration for her character as a
woman was commingled with the respect for her as a sovereign, in all the honours
that were tendered to him wherever he moved. Any father or any mother may always
be sure that a real friend will be true to the interests of a child of that parent, keenly
alive to that child’s welfare, and tenderly sensitive to its comfort and good name,
because it is that parent’s child. God recognized this truth when He sent His only Son
into this world as His representative. Whatever of real love for the Father there was
among the sons of men, would be cure to show itself wherever the Son was
recognized. (H. Clay Trumbull.)
19

Rejection of Christ a common, but most unreasonable iniquity
There is no sin more common or more pernicious in the Christian world than an
unsuitable reception of Jesus Christ and the gospel. A soul that has the offer of Christ
and the gospel, and yet neglects Him, is certainly in a perishing condition, whatever
good works, whatever amiable qualities or appearances of virtue it may be adorned
with. This was the sin of the Jews in Christ’s time, and this brought temporal and
eternal ruin upon them. To represent this sin in a convictive light is the primary
design of this parable. But it will admit of a more extensive application. It reaches us
in these ends of the earth. However likely it be from appearances that the Son of God
will universally meet with an affectionate reception from creatures that stand in such
absolute need of Him, yet it is a melancholy, notorious fact that Jesus Christ has but
little of the reverence and love of mankind. The prophetical character given of Him
long ago by Isaiah still holds true. This is a most melancholy and astonishing thing; it
may spread amazement and horror through the whole universe, but, alas! it is a plain
fact.
I. To show you what kind of reception we may reasonable be expected to give to the
Son of God.
1. We should give Him a reception agreeable to the character which He sustains.
(1) A Saviour in a desperate case, a relief for the remediless, a helper for the
helpless.
(2) A great high priest making atonement for sin.
(3) A mediatorial king, invested with all the power in heaven and earth, and
demanding universal homage.
(4) The publisher and the brightest demonstration of the Father’s love. And
has He not discovered His own love by the many labours of His life, and by
the agonies and tortures of His cross?
(5) As able to save to the uttermost all that come unto God through Him, and
as willing as able, as gracious as powerful.
(6) A great prophet sent to publish His Father’s will, to reveal the deep things
of God, and to show the way in which guilty sinners may be reconciled to God.
A way which all the philosophers and sages of antiquity, after all their
perplexing searches, could never discover.
(7) The august character of supreme Judge of the quick and dead. Do not
imagine that none are concerned to give Him a proper reception but those
with whom Be conversed in the days of His flesh. He is an ever-present
Saviour, and He left His gospel on earth in His stead, when He went to
heaven. It is with the motion of the mind and not of the body that sinners
must come to Him; and in this sense we may come to Him as properly as
those that conversed with Him.
II. The seasonableness of the expectation that we should give the Son of God a
welcome reception. Here full evidence must strike the mind at first sight. Is there not
infinite reason that infinite beauty and excellence should be esteemed and loved? that
supreme authority should be obeyed, and the highest character revered? Is it not
reasonable that the most amazing display of love and mercy should meet with the
most affectionate returns of gratitude from the party obliged, etc.? In short, no man
can deny the reasonableness of this expectation without denying himself to be a
20

creature.
III. To show how different a reception the Son of God generally meets with in our
world, from what might reasonable be expected.
1. Let me put you all upon a serious search, what kind of reception you have given
to Jesus Christ. It is high time for you to inquire into your behaviour.
2. Is it not evident that Jesus Christ has had but little share in your thoughts and
affections?
3. Is Jesus Christ the favourite subject of your conversation?
4. Are not your hearts destitute of His love? If you deny the charge and profess
that you love Him, where are the inseparable fruits and effects of His love?
5. Have you learned to entrust your souls in His hands, to be saved by Him
entirely in His own way? Or, do you not depend, in part at least, upon your own
imaginary goodness? etc.
Conclusion:-
1. Do you not think that by thus neglecting the Lord Jesus, you contract the most
aggravated guilt?
2. Must not your punishment be peculiarly aggravated, since it will be
proportioned to your guilt?
3. How do you expect to escape this signal vengeance, if you still continue to
neglect the Lord Jesus (Heb_2:8)?
4. If your guilt and danger be so great, and if in your present condition you are
ready every moment to be engulfed in everlasting destruction, does it become you
to be so easy and careless, so merry and gay? (President Davies.)
Reverence claimed for Christ
The Saviour here applies an ancient prediction to Himself (verse 10), “And have ye
not read,” etc. Our present design is the consideration of the words of our text as they
will properly apply to us.
I. The dignified character of Christ. “God’s well-beloved Son.” This representation
presents Jesus to us.
1. In His divine nature.
2. As the object of the Father’s delight (Isa_13:1; Joh_17:24).
II. The mission of Christ. “He sent Him also.” God had sent His prophets and
ministering servants to teach, to warn, and reveal His will to His people; but, last of
all, He sent His Son.
1. From whence? From His own bosom (Joh_1:18).
2. To whom was He sent? To a world of sinners.
3. For what was He sent? To be the Saviour of the world; to restore men to the
favour, image, and enjoyment of God.
(1) He came to destroy the works of the devil and set up the kingdom of
heaven on earth.
21

(2) He was sent to illumine a dark world by the doctrines of the gospel.
(3) To recover an alienated world by His power and grace.
(4) To redeem an accursed world by His death upon the cross.
(5) To purify a polluted world by His spirit and blood.
III. The reverence God demands on behalf of His Son. Let us ascertain-
1. The manner in which this reverence should be evinced.
(1) By adoring love of His person.
(2) By cheerful obedience to His authority.
(3) By studious imitation of His example.
(4) By ardent zeal for His glory; making Christ’s interest our own; living to
spread His name.
2. The grounds of this reverence.
(1) Think of the glory of His person.
(2) The purity of His character.
(3) The riches of His grace.
(4) The preciousness of His benefits.
(5) The terribleness of His wrath.
Application:
1. Address sinners. Rejection of Christ will involve you in endless wrath and ruin.
2. Saints. Aver your reverence for Christ. Not only cherish it, but exhibit it.
Fearlessly profess Him before men, and ever live to the glory of His name. (J.
Burns, D. D.)
The reverence due to the Son of God
I. It is reasonable He should be reverenced on account of-
1. The dignity and authority of His Father.
2. His inherent excellencies.
3. His actual achievements.
II. The reception which He met with.
III. The doom of those who disregard the Son. The ancient Jews who persisted in
their rebellion did not escape punishment. So all those who now reject the offers of
mercy and disregard the Son of God, will not escape punishment.
IV. Christ shall be reverenced. (G. Phillips.)
The builders overruled by the great Architect
This is a striking though homely image applied to the most wonderful of events.
I. The blindness of the builders. The position which the Jewish leaders occupied was
a very honourable one. They were appointed to build-to build up the Church. They
22

have to deliberate and devise regarding all that greatly pertained to the ecclesiastical
life of the nation. But there also lay their great responsibility. They might do a great
service, putting Christ into the place intended for Him; or they might do a great
disservice, setting Him aside, and putting Him in a false light before the nation. It
unhappily turned out in the latter way. And their crime is represented as a refusing of
Him whom God meant to be a chief cornerstone. And what made their conduct so
criminal was that they acted against the light.
II. The builders as overruled by the Great Architect. It has always been matter for
surprise how bad men get into power. Never was human liberty brought into such
antagonism to the Divine sovereignty. It would have been a sad thing if their conduct
had prevented the building up of a Church. That, we know, could never be. This may
be put on the ground of the Divine purpose. Christ was the living stone, chosen of
God, But deeper than the purpose itself is the ground of the purpose in the character
of God, and the fitness of the stone for the place. He was a stone refused, disallowed.
But God was independent of them, and got others more humble than they, but more
in sympathy with the purpose. Ay, even they are taken up into the purpose as
unconscious, involuntary instruments. For it was in the very refusing of Him in His
death that He became chief cornerstone. They were thus doing what they did not
intend to do. And He rose triumphant out of their hands when they thought they had
effectually secured Him in the tomb.
III. Let us draw some lessons from the theme.
1. Let us beware of self-deception, of blinding ourselves. These rulers thought
they were doing God service in what they did to Christ. If they could so far
deceive themselves who occupied so prominent a position in the Church, have we
not reason to be on our guard?
2. Let us beware of leaving out Christ.
3. Let us admire the placing of Christ as chief cornerstone.
4. Let us remember the way and glory of becoming living stones in the spiritual
temple.
5. Let us consider the loss of not being living stones in this building. Our Lord
has a comment on these words, than which there is nothing more fearful:
“Whosoever shall fall,” etc. (R. Finlayson, B. A.)
Rejected and chosen
I. The principle here asserted. The quotation is from Psa_118:22-23.
1. The intrinsic excellence of a thing is not at all affected by its non-recognition.
2. The intrinsic excellence of true principles enables them to become, in spite of
human contempt, true rulers of the world and of life.
3. In their opposition to the true and the good, men know not what they do.
4. We see now how God must make use of what seem the unlikeliest instruments
for the realization of His gracious purposes.
5. The processes of spiritual regeneration and new life are carried on by means of
rejected powers.
II. The reaction of this principle upon the men of Christ’s time. “They knew that He
had spoken the parable against them.” They lost the Christ they rejected. “To him
23

that hath shall be given,” etc.
III. There are special lessons here for the men of the present age.
1. The possession of great privileges and advantages is not to be regarded as
excluding moral abuses and dangers.
2. Faithfulness to spiritual truth is the true life giving and conservative force in
individual and national life. What is morally wrong can never be safe.
3. Personal relations to the Christ determine destiny. “Whosoever shall fall on
this stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall it will grind him to
powder.” (The Preacher’s Monthly.)
The rejected stone
God’s truth overcoming human opposition:-There is a legend which I have seen
somewhere, which describes the origin of the figure in this way: That at the building
of the temple a stone was cut and shaped in the quarries, of which the builders could
make no use. It lay about daring the period of the building, held by all to be a
hindrance (a stone of stumbling), but at the very last its place was found to be at the
head of the corner, binding the two sides together. And so the Father explains Christ
the cornerstone, as binding Jew and Gentile in one Church of God. It is very
remarkable how often this has been repeated in the history of the Church-how great
religious movements have been frowned down, if not actively opposed, by those in
high places, which have afterwards subdued all opposition. In our own times, in this
very century, this has occurred twice. First, the great evangelical movement in our
Church was set at naught by the builders, though it was the assertion of the primary
truth of personal religion-that each soul must have a personal apprehension of
Christ, and look to Him with the eye of a living faith; and then the great Church
movement was almost unanimously rejected by the bishops between 1810 and 1850,
though it was the assertion of the truths patent through all the New Testament, that
the Church, though a visible organization, is the mystical body of Christ-that it is a
supernatural system of grace, and that its sacraments are the signs of grace actually
given in and with the outward sign. In neither of these cases did “the builders”
discern the strength of the principles asserted, and foresee that they must win their
way; though the formularies of the Church, of which these builders were the
exponents and guardians, assert very unmistakably both these truths in conjunction,
viz., spiritual apprehension of Christ, and sacramental union in His body. (M. F.
Sadler, M. A.)
The headstone of the corner
The Lord Jesus is-
I. A stone: No firmness but in Him.
II. A fundamental stone: No building but on Him.
III. A corner stone: No piecing, or reconciliation, but in Him. (Anon.)
They knew that He had spoken.-
A guilty conscience
24

During the Protectorate, a certain knight in the county of Surrey had a lawsuit with
the minister of his parish; and, whilst the dispute was pending, Sir John imagined
that the sermons which were delivered in church were preached at him. He,
therefore, complained against the minister to Oliver Cromwell, who inquired of the
preacher concerning it; and, having found that he merely reproved common sins, he
dismissed the complaining knight, saying, “Go home, Sir John, and hereafter live in
good friendship with your minister; the Word of the Lord is a searching word, and it
seems as if it had found you out!”
2 At harvest time he sent a servant to the
tenants to collect from them some of the fruit of
the vineyard.
GILL, "And at the season he sent unto the husbandman a servant,.... The
Evangelist Matthew says, "when the time of the fruit drew near", Mat_21:34; and so
the Persic version here reads. The Syriac and Ethiopic versions read, "in its own
time", or "season", which was the fourth year from the planting of it; and then it was
holy to the Lord; and might not be eaten until the fifth year, Lev_19:23. According to
the Jewish canons (l), a vineyard of the fourth year was marked with clods of earth,
to show it was not to be eaten of; and the fruit of it was brought up to Jerusalem,
from every place that was but a day's journey from thence, there to be eaten, or
redeemed. Nor by the "servant" are intended the prophets of the Old Testament, who
were sent to the Jews to call upon them to bring forth fruits of righteousness; for not
a single person, but a set of men, are here designed; and the Evangelist Matthew
expresses it in the plural number, "servants":
that he might receive from the husbandmen the fruit of the vineyard: by
the hands of his servants; for in Matthew it is, "that they might receive", &c. such as
righteousness and judgment, truth and holiness, so as to give an account of them,
which might have been expected from a people under such advantages, Isa_5:7; See
Gill on Mat_21:34.
HENRY, "II. Those whom God lets out his vineyard to, he sends his servants to, to
put them in mind of his just expectations from them, Mar_12:2. He was not hasty in
his demands, nor high, for he did not send for the rent till they could make it, at the
season; nor did he put them to the trouble of making money of it, but was willing to
take it in specie.
COFFMAN, "As to which village was meant, there is no certain way to
determine it; but Matthew's mention of their coming to Bethphage with no
mention of Bethany suggests that the latter was the "village over against" them.
Mark and Luke writing at a later date than Matthew threw in the name of the
village where they got the colt. This writer is aware that this contradicts the
notions regarding Mark's being the first gospel; but this is only one of a hundred
25

examples in the text itself suggesting the priority of Matthew, a position which
this writer accepts as far more likely to be true. The historical fact of Matthew's
being the first book in the New Testament is of immense weight.
A colt tied ... The mother would not depart from the colt if the latter was tied,
hence it was unnecessary to tie both animals. Tying the mother, on the other
hand, would not restrain the colt from wandering off. Both were tied.
LIGHTFOOT, “[And at the season he sent to the husbandmen.] That is, in the
fourth year after the first planting it: when it now was a vineyard of four years
old; at least before that year there was no profit of the fruits. "They paint [or
note] a vineyard of four years old by some turf [or clod] of earth, coloured; and
that uncircumcised with clay; and sepulchres with chalk."
The Gloss is this: "On a vineyard of four years old they paint some marks out of
the turf of the earth, that men may know that it is a vineyard of four years old,
and eat not of it, because it is holy, as the Lord saith, Leviticus 19:24; and the
owners ought to eat the fruit of it at Jerusalem, as the second tithe. And an
uncircumcised vineyard," [that is, which was not yet four years old; see Leviticus
19:23] "they mark with clay, that is, digested in fire. For the prohibition of (a
vineyard) uncircumcised, is greater than the prohibition concerning that of four
years old: for that of four years old is fit for eating; but that uncircumcised is not
admitted to any use. Therefore, they marked not that by the turf, lest the mark
might perhaps be defaced, and perish; and men not seeing it might eat of it," &c.
3 But they seized him, beat him and sent him
away empty-handed.
GILL, "And they caught him,.... This clause is left out in the Syriac and Persic
versions, though it seems proper to be retained; and denotes the rudeness and
violence with which the prophets of the Lord were used by the Jewish nation:
and beat him: either with their fists, or with rods, and scourges, till the skin was
flayed off:
and sent him away empty; without any fruit to carry with him, or give an account
of, to the owner of the vineyard.
HENRY, "III. It is sad to think what base usage God's faithful ministers have met
with, in all ages, from those that have enjoyed the privileges of the church, and have
not brought forth fruit answerable. The Old Testament prophets were persecuted
even by those that went under the name of the Old Testament church. They beat
them, and sent them empty away (Mar_12:3); that was bad: they wounded them,
26

and sent them away shamefully entreated (Mar_12:4); that was worse: nay, at
length, they came to such a pitch of wickedness, that they killed them, Mar_12:5.
COFFMAN, "The Lord hath need of him ... Jesus here referred to himself as
"Lord," a term that cannot, in context, be separated from a claim of divinity on
Jesus' part.
And straightway he will send him back hither ... The Greek word here rendered
"hither" is actually "here";[2] it is thus a reference to the place where Jesus was
standing when he gave this order. The word "back" is thus not a reference to
taking the animal back but to the coming "back" of the disciples with the colt.
Translators and commentators have a great difficulty with this rather unusual
mode of expression; but the meaning is absolutely clear in Matthew: "And
straightway he will send them" (Matthew 21:3), meaning the owner would
straightway send the requested colt (and its mother) to Jesus. The notion that
Jesus was here promising to send the animal back promptly is ridiculous, as if
the Lord would need to promise any such thing in order to procure an animal
which he already knew would be promptly given without any such promise. The
appearance of this event in all three synoptic gospels is proof enough that the
supernatural knowledge of the Lord regarding where the colt would be found,
the fact of its being tied and being with its mother: and the fact of the owner's
willingness to allow the Lord to use them that supernatural knowledge is the
main point of the narrative, along with the element of fulfilling prophecy.
ENDNOTE:
[2] Nestle Greek Text (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House,
1972.
4 Then he sent another servant to them; they
struck this man on the head and treated him
shamefully.
CLARKE, "At him they cast stones and wounded him in the head - Or
rather, as most learned men agree, they made short work of it, εκεφαλαιωσαν. We
have followed the Vulgate, illum in capite vulneraverunt, in translating the original,
wounded him in the head, in which signification, I believe, the word is found in no
Greek writer. Ανακεφαλαιοοµαι signifies to sum up, to comprise, and is used in this
sense by St. Paul, Rom_13:9. From the parable we learn that these people were
determined to hear no reason, to do no justice, and to keep the possession and the
produce by violence; therefore they fulfilled their purpose in the fullest and speediest
27

manner, which seems to be what the evangelist intended to express by the word in
question. Mr. Wakefield translates, They speedily sent him away; others think the
meaning is, They shaved their heads and made them look ridiculously; this is much
to the same purpose, but I prefer, They made short work of it. Dr. Lightfoot, De Dieu,
and others, agree in the sense given above; and this will appear the more probable, if
the word λιθοβολησαντες, they cast stones, be omitted, as it is by BDL, the Coptic,
Vulgate, and all the Itala.
GILL, "And again he sent unto them another servant,.... Another set of good
men, to instruct, advise, and counsel them, and exhort them to their duty; such as
were Isaiah, Zechariah, and others:
and at him they cast stones, and wounded him in the head; for of these were
stoned, as well as sawn asunder, and slain with the sword; though it seems, that this
servant, or this set of men, were not stoned to death, because he was afterwards said
to be sent away: nor could the stoning be what was done by the order of the
sanhedrim, which was done by letting an heavy stone fail upon the heart (k); but this
was done by all the people, by the outrageous zealots, in the manner Stephen was
stoned. Dr. Lightfoot thinks, the usual sense of the Greek word may be retained;
which signifies "to reduce", or "gather into a certain sum": and so as this servant was
sent to reckon with these husbandmen, and take an account from them of the fruit of
the vineyard, one cast a stone at him, saying, there is fruit for you; and a second cast
another stone, saying the same thing; and so they went on one after another, till at
last they said, in a deriding way, now the sum is made up with you:
and sent him away shamefully handled; with great ignominy and reproach.
COFFMAN, "It should be noted that the disciples found the colt exactly where
Jesus said they would find it, that it was tied, and that they encountered exactly
the same questioning of what they were doing that Jesus had anticipated. No
wonder such an event persisted in the memory of all and found its way into all
three synoptics. Who but God could have exhibited such foreknowledge as this?
Commentators who suppose that Jesus must have set this up in advance, or that
the owner was in Jesus' company on that occasion, are not interpreting anything
in the Bible but expressing their own unbelief. Significantly, it appears that the
people questioning the disciples were merely bystanders, and not the owner; and
it would have been impossible to have set up such a thing in advance.
LIGHTFOOT, “[At him they cast stones, and wounded him in the head.] I...They
cast stones at the servant, and deriding him, made up the sum with him: saying,
perhaps this, or some such thing to him, "Do you come for fruit and rent?
Behold this fruit" (casting a stone at him) "behold another fruit," (casting
another stone) and so many times together: and so they sent him away derided,
and loaded with disgrace.
II. But be it that the word is to be translated as it is commonly rendered, "they
wounded him in the head": then this way of stoning is thus distinguished from
that whereby they were slain who were stoned by the Sanhedrim. That was
called stone-casting: for it was the cast of a stone, indeed, but of one only, and
28

that a very great one; and that upon the heart of the condemned person, when
now he lay along upon his back. But this stoning was of many stones, thrown out
of the hand through the air, striking him here and there and everywhere. The
head of him that was stoned by the Sanhedrim was unhurt, and without any
wound; but here, They cast stones at him, and wounded him in the head.
5 He sent still another, and that one they killed.
He sent many others; some of them they beat,
others they killed.
GILL, "And again he sent another,.... That is, another servant, or set of men, it
may be in the times of the Maccabees, who were used in a very inhuman manner; see
Heb_11:37;
and him they killed; either with the sword, or by inflicting some capital
punishment, as stoning, strangling, &c.
and many others; that is, either the owner of the vineyard sent many other
servants, or the husbandmen ill used many others that were sent to them:
beating some; with their hands, or with scourges;
and killing some; in one or other of the above ways.
6 “He had one left to send, a son, whom he
loved. He sent him last of all, saying, ‘They will
respect my son.’
GILL, "Having yet therefore one son, his well beloved,.... The Messiah, the
Lord Jesus Christ, who is the one, and only Son of God his Father, his only begotten
Son, for he has no other Son in the same way of filiation; and who is his dear Son, the
Son of his love, who was loved by him before the foundation of the world; and whom
he declared to be his beloved Son, both at his baptism, and at his transfiguration
upon the mount, by a voice from heaven: this Son he having with him, in his bosom,
as one brought up with him, and rejoicing before him,
29

he sent him also last unto them; after all the prophets had been with them,
when the last days were come, the end of the Jewish state, civil and ecclesiastical; see
Heb_1:1;
saying, they will reverence my son. The Syriac, Arabic, and Persic versions read,
"perhaps they will reverence my son", as in Luk_20:13; See Gill on Mat_21:37.
HENRY, "IV. It was no wonder if those who abused the prophets, abused Christ
himself. God did at length send them his Son, his well-beloved; it was therefore so
much the greater kindness in him to send him; as in Jacob to send Joseph to visit his
brethren, Gen_37:14. And it might be expected that he whom their Master loved,
they also should respect and love (Mar_12:6); “They will reverence my son, and, in
reverence to him, will pay their rent.”
7 “But the tenants said to one another, ‘This is
the heir. Come, let’s kill him, and the
inheritance will be ours.’
CLARKE, "This is the heir - So they appear to have acknowledged in their
consciences that this was the Messiah, the heir of all things.
The inheritance shall be ours - By slaying him we shall maintain our
authority, and keep possession of our revenues.
GILL, "But those husbandmen said among themselves,.... This, in the Persic
version, is introduced thus, "when the vine dressers saw the son of the lord of the
vineyard": agreeably to Mat_21:38. The Ethiopic version renders it, "and the servants
said"; not the servants that had been sent, but the workmen in the vineyard:
this is the heir; that is, "of the vineyard", as the Persic version expresses it they
knew him by the prophecies of the Old Testament which had described him, and by
the miracles which were wrought by him; and they could not deny but that the
vineyard of the house of Judah belonged to him, and he was right heir to the throne
of Israel; though they refused to embrace him, confess him, and declare for him: but,
on the other hand, said,
come let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours; that is, "the
vineyard", and the Persic version again read. The priests, Scribes, and elders of the
people consulted together to take away his life, with this view: that they might
continue in the quiet possession of their nation, temple, and worship, in the office
they bore, and in the privileges they partook of; and that the Romans might not
come, and take away their place and nation, Joh_11:47; See Gill on Mat_21:38.
30

HENRY, "But, instead of reverencing him because he was the son and heir, they
therefore hated him, Mar_12:7. Because Christ, in calling to repentance and
reformation, made his demands with more authority than the prophets had done,
they were the more enraged against him, and determined to put him to death, that
they might engross all church power to themselves, and that all the respect and
obedience of the people might be paid to them only; “The inheritance shall be ours,
we will be lords paramount, and bear all the sway.” There is an inheritance, which, if
they had duly reverenced the Son, might have been theirs, a heavenly inheritance;
but they slighted that, and would have their inheritance in the wealth, and pomp, and
powers, of this world. So they took him, and killed him; they had not done it yet, but
they would do it in a little time; and they cast him out of the vineyard, they refused
to admit his gospel when he was gone; it would by no means agree with their scheme,
and so they threw it out with disdain and detestation.
BARCLAY, "HE THAT COMETH (Mark 11:7-10)
11:7-10 They brought the colt to Jesus, and they put their garments on it, and
mounted him on it. Many of them spread their garments on the road. Others cut
branches from the fields and spread them on the road. And those who were
going before and those who were following kept shouting, "Save now! Blessed is
the coming kingdom of our father David! Send thy salvation from the heights of
heaven!"
The colt they brought had never been ridden upon. That was fitting, for a beast
to be used for a sacred purpose must never have been used for any other
purpose. It was so with the red heifer whose ashes cleansed from pollution
(Numbers 19:2, Deuteronomy 21:3).
The whole picture is of a populace who misunderstood. It shows us a crowd of
people thinking of kingship in the terms of conquest in which they had thought
of it for so long. It is oddly reminiscent of how Simon Maccabaeus entered
Jerusalem a hundred and fifty years before, after he had blasted Israel's enemies
in battle. "And he entered into it the three and twentieth day of the seventh
month, in the hundred, seventy and first year, with thanksgiving and branches of
palm trees, and with harps, and cymbals, and viols, and hymns and songs,
because there was destroyed a great enemy out of Israel." (1 Maccabees 13:51.)
It was a conqueror's welcome they sought to give to Jesus, but they never
dreamed of the kind of conqueror he wished to be.
The very shouts which the crowd raised to Jesus showed how their thoughts
were running. When they spread their garments on the ground before him, they
did exactly what the crowd did when that man of blood Jehu was anointed king.
(2 Kings 9:13.) They shouted, "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the
Lord!" That is a quotation from Psalms 118:26, and should really read a little
differently, "Blessed in the name of the Lord is he who comes!"
There are three things to note about that shout.
(i) It was the regular greeting with which pilgrims were addressed when they
reached the Temple on the occasion of the great feasts.
31

(ii) "He who comes" was another name for the Messiah. When the Jews spoke
about the Messiah, they talked of him as the One who is Coming.
(iii) But it is the whole origin of the Psalm from which the words come that
makes them supremely suggestive. In 167 B.C. there had arisen an extraordinary
king in Syria called Antiocheius. He had conceived it his duty to be a missionary
of Hellenism and to introduce Greek ways of life, Greek thought and Greek
religion wherever he could, even, if necessary, by force. He tried to do so in
Palestine.
For a time he conquered Palestine. To possess a copy of the law or to circumcise
a child were crimes punishable by death. He desecrated the Temple courts. He
actually instituted the worship of Zeus where Jehovah had been worshipped.
With deliberate insult he offered swine's flesh on the great altar of the burnt-
offering. He made the chambers round the Temple courts into brothels. He did
everything he could to wipe out the Jewish faith.
It was then that Judas Maccabaeus arose, and after an amazing career of
conquest, in 163 B.C. he drove Antiocheius out and re-purified and re-
consecrated the temple, an event which the Feast of the Dedication, or the Feast
of Hanukah, still commemorates. And in all probability Psalms 118:1-29 was
written to commemorate that great day of purification and the battle which
Judas Maccabaeus won. It is a conqueror's psalm.
Again and again we see the same thing happening in this incident. Jesus had
claimed to be the Messiah, but in such a way as to try to show that the popular
ideas of the Messiah were misguided. But the people did not see it. Their
welcome was one which befitted, not the King of love, but the conqueror who
would shatter the enemies of Israel.
In Mark 11:9-10 there is the word Hosanna. The word is consistently
misunderstood. It is quoted and used as if it meant Praise; but it is a simple
transliteration of the Hebrew for Save now! it occurs in exactly the same form in
2 Samuel 14:4 and 2 Kings 6:26, where it is used by people seeking for help and
protection at the hands of the king. When the people shouted Hosanna it was not
a cry of praise to Jesus, which it often sounds like when we quote it. It was a cry
to God to break in and save his people now that the Messiah had come.
No incident so shows the sheer courage of Jesus as this does. In the
circumstances one might have expected him to enter Jerusalem secretly and to
keep hidden from the authorities who were out to destroy him. Instead he
entered in such a way that the attention of every eye was focussed upon him. One
of the most dangerous things a man can do is to go to people and tell them that
all their accepted ideas are wrong. Any man who tries to tear up by the roots a
people's nationalistic dreams is in for trouble. But that is what Jesus deliberately
was doing. Here we see Jesus making the last appeal of love and making it with a
courage that is heroic.
32

8 So they took him and killed him, and threw
him out of the vineyard.
GILL, "And they took him, and killed him, and cast him, out of the
vineyard. They sent their officers and servants, and apprehended him in the
garden; they delivered him to the Gentiles, who were without the vineyard, and by
whom, at their instigation, he was put to death, even to the death of the cross. The
Ethiopic version reads it in the same order as in Matthew; "they cast him out of the
vineyard, and killed hin"; See Gill on Mat_21:39.
HENRY, "There is an inheritance, which, if they had duly reverenced the Son,
might have been theirs, a heavenly inheritance; but they slighted that, and would
have their inheritance in the wealth, and pomp, and powers, of this world. So they
took him, and killed him; they had not done it yet, but they would do it in a little
time; and they cast him out of the vineyard, they refused to admit his gospel when he
was gone; it would by no means agree with their scheme, and so they threw it out
with disdain and detestation.
COFFMAN, "Cranfield's allegation says this "demonstration was quite a small
affair."[3] Such a comment is shocking, not because of any possible truth in it,
but because it is almost incredible that an intelligent man would make it. As
these lines are being written, President Richard M. Nixon has just enjoyed a
triumphal reception in Egypt where over two million people enthusiastically
hailed him; but does anyone suppose for a moment that nineteen centuries
afterward people will be studying that entry into Egypt by an American
president? This entry of Jesus Christ into Jerusalem is still hailed by millions
some two thousand years after the fact. It was immortalized by four historical
records, hated to be sure, but still true, still standing as fact, still received as the
word of God to mankind, still loved, honored, and revered by people of all
nations. That such results could have flowed out of some "very small affair" is
utterly impossible of belief. On this day, the palm branch became forever
afterward a symbol of victory, which, as Dummelow said, was a thing unknown
to the Jews.[4] Some "small affair"!
This great outpouring of Jerusalem to welcome Jesus our Lord was a vast
spontaneous demonstration in which the great masses of the people participated
with Hosannas and praises and the casting of their clothes in the street before the
Lord (they didn't even do that for Nixon). The King had indeed come to his
people, and they hailed him as "the King of Israel" and as "the Son of David."
The priests were furious, saying, "Lo, the world has gone after him" (John
12:19). As a matter of fact, it had!
[3] C. E. B. Cranfield, op. cit., p. 353.
[4] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Whole Bible (New York: The
33

Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 694.
9 “What then will the owner of the vineyard do?
He will come and kill those tenants and give the
vineyard to others.
CLARKE, "And will give the vineyard unto others - The vineyard must not
perish with the husbandmen; it is still capable of producing much fruit, if it be
properly cultivated. I will give it into the care of new vine-dressers, the evangelists
and apostles. - And under their ministry, multitudes were brought to God before the
destruction of Jerusalem.
GILL, "What shall therefore the Lord of the vineyard do?.... The Arabic and
Ethiopic versions add, to them; that is, to the husbandmen, as is expressed in Mat_
21:40; see Gill on Mat_21:40,
he will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard
unto others. As the former clause contains a question put by Christ upon his having
finished the parable, this is an answer to it, given by the chief priests, Scribes, and
elders, in whose presence, and for whose sake it was delivered; See Gill on Mat_
21:41.
HENRY, "V. For such sinful and shameful doings nothing can be expected but a
fearful doom (Mar_12:9); What shall therefore the Lord of the vineyard do? It is
easy to say what, for nothing could be done more provoking.
1. He will come, and destroy the husbandmen, whom he would have saved. When
they only denied the fruit, he did not distrain upon them for rent, nor disseize them
and dispossess them for non-payment; but when they killed his servants, and his
Son, he determined to destroy them; and this was fulfilled when Jerusalem was laid
waste, and the Jewish nation extirpated and made a desolation.
2. He will give the vineyards to others. If he have not the rent from them, he will
have it from another people, for God will be no loser by any. This was fulfilled in the
taking in of the Gentiles, and the abundance of fruit which the gospel brought forth
in all the world, Col_1:6. If some from whom we expected well, prove bad, it doth not
follow but that others will be better. Christ encouraged himself with this in his
undertaking; Though Israel be not gathered, not gathered to him, but gathered
against him, yet shall I be glorious (Isa_49:5, Isa_49:6), as a Light to lighten the
Gentiles.
COFFMAN, "They that went before, and they that followed ... Here are the two
34

great multitudes, one following Jesus from Bethany, many of them being
eyewitnesses of the raising of Lazarus and all of them shouting that fact as they
followed, and another coming out from Jerusalem, having heard that the man
who raised Lazarus was coming, and hastening out to greet him. Thus, Mark's
brief words here give the basic fact of those two great masses of people
converging upon Jesus.
The balance of these two verses are rich with messianic implications, the mention
of David, so long dead and buried, having no other possible meaning except as a
reference to the Son of David, Israel's long-expected Messiah.
For comment upon the fulfillment of Zechariah 9:9, and with regard to many of
the spiritual overtones of this wonderful entry, see my Commentary on Matthew,
Matthew 21:1-11. No triumphal entry ever known at any time or place could be
compared with that of the world's true Light on the last Sunday preceding his
resurrection from the dead; and the truly wonderful thing about Jesus' triumph
is that it is still going on!
The exclamations of the multitudes hailing Jesus' entry into the city are variously
reported by the four gospels: Matthew has "Hosanna to the Son of David;
blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest"
(Matthew 21:9); Mark has "Blessed is the kingdom that cometh, the kingdom of
our father David: Hosanna in the highest" (Mark 11:9,10); Luke has "Blessed is
the King that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest" Luke
19:38); and John has "Hosanna: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the
Lord, even the King of Israel" (John 12:13). Such accounts are exactly what one
should have expected in view of the undeniable truth that such multitudes would
have shouted MANY THINGS. The four samplings which have come down to us
outline quite clearly the nature and intent of their exclamations. Critics who
select the least extensive of these four records and then shout that "this is all that
was said by those multitudes" betray not merely their lack of knowing the
Scriptures but also their phenomenal ignorance of crowds such as that which
hailed the Lord.
10 Haven’t you read this passage of Scripture:
“‘The stone the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone;
GILL, "And have ye not read this Scripture?.... In Psa_118:22 these are the
words of Christ directed to the above persons, who were, many of them, teachers of
the people, and therefore ought to have read the scriptures, and have taken notice of,
35

Mark 12 commentary

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (14)

Similar to Mark 12 commentary

Similar to Mark 12 commentary (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Mark 12 commentary