The Jewish Annotated New Testament (209 page)

10
:
Not a quotation, but an addition to make the connection with the
coming
Davidic
kingdom
.

11.12
–25: Cursing of the fig tree and the prophetic judgment against the temple
(Mt 21.12–13,18–22; Lk 19.45–48).

15
–18:
The Gospel of John places the temple action very early (2.13–22), but Mark, followed by Matthew and Luke, depicts it as preceding the trial and crucifixion. The scholarly consensus is that Mark has the correct placement: the Temple scene was likely the act of Jesus that provoked his execution by the Roman authorities. The
temple
compound was the largest in the ancient world in terms of area. In the outer court (only later called the court of the Gentiles) money changers and animal merchants conducted the business necessary for pilgrims to provide sacrifices.

14
:
The reason for this curse is not given in the text. Destruction or withering of a fig tree is one image of God’s judgment (Isa 34.4; Jer 5.17).

15
–17:
Why Jesus objects is not clear. Christian tradition has held that Jesus condemns Temple sacrifices and worship in principle and is announcing the transition from Jewish law to faith in Christ. The text nowhere suggests this. Scholars are split in focusing on (1) a violation of the sanctity of the Temple (cf.
m. Ber
. 9.5, not relating to money but with general behavior in the Temple precincts); (2)
for all the nations
as meaning an end to the exclusion of Gentiles; or (3) the purported economic injustice of the Roman-appointed Temple establishment in requiring money to be changed at a discount favorable to the Temple. But the text does not explicitly mention any of these possible motivations. The fall of the first Temple as a result of sin is mourned in some of the prophets, e.g., Isa 64:11. Mark combines Isa 56.7 and Jer 7.11, while John 2.16–17 quotes Ps 69.9 and alludes to Zech 14.21. The original account may therefore not have included a quotation, since the two versions of it give different ones; the passage may have been presented as a prophetic act. Mark’s quotations are often interpreted as an affirmation of the inclusion of Gentiles, but the Isaiah quotation concerns the acceptance of both eunuchs and foreigners; the former are included and the latter observe God’s laws without necessarily becoming Jews. The allusion to Jer 7.11,
den of robbers,
may suggest that Mark is opposed to abuses by Temple authorities or the selling of sacrificial animals in the outer court of the Temple, as v. 16 indicates. The context of Jer 7.1–15 is a condemnation of abuses by the people and the false sense of security that they may take in the Temple; it is not clear what particular abuses Mark may have in mind.

20
–25:
In Mark’s treatment, the significance of the fig tree is raised dramatically, since it is now associated with a prayer that the Temple mount, the place of orderly worship and acknowledgment of God’s rule, would be
taken up and thrown into the sea
, the place of primal chaos which God subdues in creation (Isa 27.1; Ps 89.9; Job 26.12). Continuing the use of fig symbolism from the prophets (Mic 7.1; Hos 9.10; cf. Lk 13.6–9), here Mark may prophesy the coming destruction of the Temple or of Israel’s leaders.

25
:
Forgive… your Father in heaven may also forgive
, Mark does not include the Lord’s Prayer (Mt 6.9–13; Lk 11.2–4), but this language echoes one of its sections.
Father,
see 14.36n.

11.27
–33: Question on authority
(Mt 21.23–27; Lk 20.1–8).

29
–30:
The leaders try to force Jesus to make a dangerous statement, but he turns their challenge back against them by placing them in a similar dilemma.

12.1
–12: Parable of the vineyard
(Mt 21.33–46; Lk 20.9–19). The thrust of this parable is more judgment/less kingdom than the other parables, and requires an allegorical reading: the vineyard is Israel (Isa 5.1–7), the tenants are Israel’s leaders, the servants are God’s prophets, and the heir is Jesus. In Isaiah the vineyard is condemned for not producing edible grapes (idolatry and injustice are compared to wild grapes), and its destruction is predicted. Christian tradition sees this parable as a blueprint for the replacement of Judaism by the church, but it can also be understood as Jesus’ condemnation of Jewish officials in collusion with Rome.

10
:
Ps 118.22–23.
Cornerstone
, Gk “kephalen gonias,” Heb “rosh pinna,” “head of the corner.” A “keystone” (see translators’ note
a
) is the top stone in an arch that holds the whole arch in place; a
cornerstone
is the stone on which everything else is based.

12.13
–17: Taxes for Caesar
(Mt 22.15–22; Lk 20.20–26). As in 11.27–33, the opponents try to elicit a politically dangerous pronouncement. In 6–7 CE a prophetic leader named Judas (also mentioned in Acts 5.37) organized a movement to worship God alone and refuse to pay the tax to Caesar (Josephus,
J.W
. 2.117–18).
Putting me to the test
, Putting me on trial. The answer allows for a limited realm in which Roman rule is legitimate, but keeps Jewish practice inviolate from that realm.

12.18
–27: Dispute with the Sadducees
(Mt 22.23–33; Lk 20.27–40). Resurrection of the dead was not a belief in early Israel; life was believed to continue after death in the form of children and lineage (e.g., Ps 25.13). “Sheol,” a place of shadowy existence (Ps 6.5), is a realm of death similar to the Greek Hades; in 1 Sam 28.7, Saul uses a “woman of spirits,” a medium, to bring Samuel up from the realm of the dead (“the ground”) to prophesy for him (Sheol is not mentioned in this passage, but the shadowy existence is clear). Resurrection appears first in the “Isaiah Apocalypse” (Isa 26.19) and in Dan 12.2–3 (cf. 2 Macc 7; 4 Macc; Wis 2–5; 1 Cor 15). The
Sadducees
were an aristocratic party who observed the written laws of the Torah only and not the traditions of the elders as the Pharisees did, and also differed in denying resurrection; the Pharisees, like Jesus’ followers, believed in resurrection (Acts 23.6–10), and rabbinic tradition followed Pharisaic belief (
b. Sanh
. 90b–92b).

19
–23:
The absurdity of the test case is meant to disprove the idea of resurrection.

25
:
Like angels,
describes beliefs similar to those found in contemporary Jewish apocalyptic texts (
2 Bar
. 51.5).

26
–27:
Story about the bush
, Ex 3.1–6. The argument surprisingly does not hinge on predictions of Jesus’ resurrection, but rather on the present tense: “I am,” not “I was.”
God
as
living
is a common description in the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Ps 18.46; 42.2).

12.28
–34: The greatest commandment
(Mt 22.34–40; Lk10.25–28).

29
:
Jesus quotes Deut 6.4–5 and Lev 19.18 (combining the two quotations may not have been original to Jesus: in Luke 10.25–28, Jesus elicits the quotation from a lawyer); when Hillel was faced with a similar question he summed up the law with a dictum that is not in the Torah: “Do not do to anyone else what is hateful to you” (
b. Shabb
. 31a; cf. Tob 4.15; Mt 7.12).
Hear,
Heb “shema”; the latter became the name of the prayer recited by Jews twice a day, composed of Deut 6.4–9; 11.13–21; Num 15.37–41.

32
–34:
Despite the context of the episodes before and after, the
scribe
answers Jesus positively and warmly, and Jesus responds in kind. Matthew and Luke omit these lines. Nowhere else does Mark depict scribes positively, but cf. Mt 13.52.

33
:
Hos 6.6; Mic 6.6–8.

34
:
Not far from the kingdom
is presented as a warm response from Jesus, but it may be limited.

12.35
–37: The messiah and David’s son?
(Mt 22.41–46; Lk 20.41–44). Interjected here is a short scriptural argument to the effect that the messiah is not just the son of David (i.e., a king of the Davidic line) but something greater. (See 10.47n.) Mark may have been opposing those who, during the Jewish War, longed for the military intervention of the son of David (13.6). Elsewhere Mark affirms Jesus’ connection with David (2.25–26; 10.47), but the idea of “messiah” presented in Mark does not correspond to the expectations of Jesus’ contemporaries.

36
:
Most Jews assumed that it was David’s voice who speaks in the Psalms: “The LORD (God) says to my lord (the messiah, not David) … .” The argument assumes that David, the purported speaker of Ps 110 (v. 1), called the messiah “my lord,” indicating that the messiah was David’s superior.

12.38
–44: Rich scribes and a poor widow
(Mt 23.6; Lk 20.46–47; 21.1–4). Matthew 23 develops this critique. Mark’s version does not mention Pharisees, and is more explicitly economic: the class pretensions of the scribes lead directly to a comparison with a poor widow (omitted in Matthew).

43
–44:
Some scholars suggest that Mark is critical of the woman’s over-generosity, but the text does not suggest that. The Temple is a place where both rich and poor can contribute.

13.1
–37:
Prediction of the destruction of the Temple and the events of the end (Mt 24.1–36; Lk 21.5–36). Although this section of Mark is often referred to as the Markan Apocalypse, the chapter resembles prophetic texts as well (Isa 13.11; 51.6). The main themes are that apocalyptic messengers are deceitful and that discerning people will keep watch, waiting for the real end (vv. 32–33).
Beware
implies resisting the false messianic prophets, but it also implies readiness for the true events about to unfold (vv. 26–27).

3
:
Mount of Olives
, 11.1n.
Privately
, see “Parables and Kingdom,” p.
68
.

6
:
In my name
suggests that other followers of Jesus would have varying understandings of the events of the end-time.

7
–8:
In contrast to texts such as Dan 8–12, the events of the end are disordered and cannot be treated as orderly predictions (cf. Isa 19.2;
4 Ezra
13.31–32). Some of the phrases here echo prophetic passages about the invasions of Jerusalem (e.g., Ezek 7.21–27).

9
:
Although Mark may condemn specific
councils
and
synagogues
, they still have authority over some Jewish followers of Jesus (cf. 2 Cor 11.24–25). There is not a clean break from Judaism in the early years after Jesus’ life.

10
:
This verse was perhaps inserted by Mark. Jesus himself probably did not emphasize a mission to the Gentiles, certainly not a mission without the law.